Feargate
Feargate is a searchable archive of public predictions made by AI leaders and executives, paired with fact-checked verdicts and sourced evidence. The tool tracks claims from OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, Meta, and other major labs, assigns deadlines to each prediction, and monitors whether real-world outcomes match the claim. Each verdict (false, overhyped, or likely false) includes the original statement, publication date, supporting evidence, and a combined-delay metric showing aggregate overestimation patterns. Teams access the archive via web interface, filtering by subject (AGI timelines, jobs, hacking, extinction, misinformation), lab, or person to surface relevant prediction misses during vendor-credibility research or AI adoption planning.
Feargate is a trend signal monitoring platform, priced at $100/month on the plus plan. InnovaAI scores it 3.8/10 for agency adoption, best for Strategist, Account Executive, and Founder roles handling weekly client-facing work.
Agency Audit
Feargate maintains a searchable archive of public AI predictions made by industry leaders, fact-checks them against real outcomes, and assigns verdicts (false, overhyped, or likely false) with sourced evidence. For agencies advising clients on AI adoption risk or evaluating AI vendor credibility, Feargate provides a reference layer that compresses vendor-credibility research from hours of manual digging into a filtered, deadline-tracked database. Strategists and Account Executives benefit most by anchoring client conversations in documented prediction misses rather than relying on vendor marketing claims.
3recommended
18/mo
$1,250/mo
Low
Illustrative scenario. Not a guarantee. Net capacity is the value of reclaimed time at $75/hr, less the lowest verified paid base plan (flat plan cost is shared). Hours saved come from the service estimate; implementation, taxes, and unprovided usage charges are excluded.
- Strategist handling AI vendor credibility research
- Account Executive handling client AI adoption risk assessment
- Founder handling internal AI tool evaluation
- Your agency does not advise clients on AI adoption, vendor selection, or AI risk. Feargate is a research tool for AI credibility assessment, not a general productivity or creative tool.
- Your team rarely engages with AI vendor claims or marketing narratives. If you adopt tools based on feature lists and trials rather than vendor promises, Feargate adds no workflow compression.
- You work primarily with smaller vendors or open-source models rather than major AI labs. Feargate tracks claims from OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, Meta, and others; if your clients ask about smaller players, the archive will have limited coverage.
Internal Adoption Path
$100/mo
$100/mo flat plan
18 hr/mo
3 seats × 6 hr each
$1,350/mo
modeled at $75/hr labor rate
$1,250/mo
value − subscription cost
In this model, 3 seats reclaim 18 hours of team time each month. Valued at $75/hr that is $1,350/mo, and after the $100/mo subscription it leaves $1,250/mo of capacity for billable client work.
Illustrative scenario. Not a guarantee. Uses the lowest verified paid base plan. Implementation, taxes, and unprovided usage charges are excluded.
Platform Features
Core capabilities of Feargate
Claim tracking with deadline assignment
Feargate records public statements from AI leaders, assigns a deadline to each prediction, and monitors whether the outcome matches the claim. Strategists and Founders use this to build a timeline of vendor credibility patterns when evaluating which AI platforms to recommend or adopt internally.
Verdict assignment and evidence archive
Each claim receives a verdict (false, overhyped, or likely false) backed by sourced evidence and original context. Account Executives cite these verdicts in client conversations to replace vendor-marketing narratives with documented outcomes, reducing back-and-forth on 'Is this claim real?'
Filterable claim database
Search and filter claims by subject (AGI timelines, jobs, hacking, extinction, misinformation), lab (OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, Meta), or person. Project Managers use filters to quickly surface relevant prediction misses when building AI risk assessments for specific client verticals or use cases.
Combined-delay metric
Feargate calculates the total months or years across all false predictions, showing aggregate pattern of overestimation. Strategists use this metric in client presentations to quantify how often AI leaders miss their own timelines, anchoring risk conversations in data rather than opinion.
Hall of Shame view
A curated list of the most significant prediction misses, ranked by deadline overrun. Account Executives reference this during vendor-credibility conversations to quickly surface the most egregious examples without scrolling through the full archive.
Original claim context preservation
Feargate archives the full original statement, publication date, and source alongside the verdict. This prevents misquoting or out-of-context citation when you reference a prediction miss in a client deck or proposal.
What Makes Feargate Different
Unique advantages vs similar tools in this niche
Structured claim files with original context and sourced evidence
vs Generic news articles or social media threadsEach claim includes the original statement, deadline, verdict, and multiple sourced steps for verification.
Quantified accountability metrics like combined delay across false predictions
vs Qualitative commentary without aggregate dataFeargate calculates combined delay (e.g., 20.9 years) to measure the gap between promises and reality.
Value Equation
Outcome-likelihood-time-effort assessment for Feargate
Limited agency channel
Feargate scored below the agency-resellability threshold (agency_fit_score < 50). The Value Equation projects agency-side outcomes, which don't apply to tools without a clear resell pathway.
Contact FeargatePricing
Feargate platform cost to your agency
plus: $100/mo
plus
- crosoft and others) plus 40+ critical-software organizations and committed up to $100M in usage credits. It said it did not plan to make Mythos Preview generally availabl
How usage-based pricing works
Feargate charges per consumption unit (per 1m tokens). Below are the component rates the vendor publishes. Each row is a separate charge: your total cost combines them based on your configuration and volume. Component rates range from $0.11 per 1m tokens.
Final agency cost = (sum of selected component rates) × client usage volume. Confirm a usage estimate with each client before quoting.
Component Rates
Cost per unit: total depends on your configuration and volume
No verified white-label program for Feargate: client-facing delivery runs under the platform's native branding.
Market Intelligence
Offer + scale economics for Feargate
Limited agency channel
Feargate scored below the agency-resellability threshold (agency_fit_score < 50). It's a useful tool but not designed for white-labeled or retainer-based reselling, so we don't publish productized offer economics for it.
Contact FeargateInvestment Decision Framework
Strategic vetting analysis for Feargate
Situational Fit
Fit depends on your client mix
Buy If
4Your team advises enterprise clients on AI procurement risk or AI governance frameworks. Feargate's combined-delay metric and Hall of Shame let you quantify prediction miss patterns when building risk assessments.
Your Strategists spend 3+ hours per week researching AI vendor credibility and past prediction accuracy for client RFP responses or AI adoption roadmaps. Feargate collapses that research into filtered searches by lab, subject, and person.
Your Account Executives field client questions about whether specific AI leaders' claims are reliable or overstated. Feargate provides sourced, deadline-tracked verdicts to cite in conversations without requiring you to fact-check claims yourself.
You run a quarterly AI vendor evaluation process for internal tool adoption. Feargate lets you cross-reference vendor claims against the archive before committing budget or seat licenses.
Skip If
4Your client base is non-technical or does not prioritize AI governance. If clients do not ask 'Is this vendor credible?' or 'Will this AI actually do what they claim?', Feargate has no adoption trigger.
Your agency does not advise clients on AI adoption, vendor selection, or AI risk. Feargate is a research tool for AI credibility assessment, not a general productivity or creative tool.
Your team rarely engages with AI vendor claims or marketing narratives. If you adopt tools based on feature lists and trials rather than vendor promises, Feargate adds no workflow compression.
You work primarily with smaller vendors or open-source models rather than major AI labs. Feargate tracks claims from OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, Meta, and others; if your clients ask about smaller players, the archive will have limited coverage.
Bottom Line
Feargate maintains a searchable archive of public AI predictions made by industry leaders, fact-checks them against real outcomes, and assigns verdicts (false, overhyped, or likely false) with sourced evidence. For agencies advising clients on AI adoption risk or evaluating AI vendor credibility, Feargate provides a reference layer that compresses vendor-credibility research from hours of manual digging into a filtered, deadline-tracked database. Strategists and Account Executives benefit most by anchoring client conversations in documented prediction misses rather than relying on vendor marketing claims.
Reality Check
Feargate's value depends on your team regularly advising clients on AI vendor selection or AI adoption strategy. If your agency focuses on design, content, or execution rather than AI risk assessment, adoption ROI is minimal. The tool also requires discipline: teams must develop a habit of consulting the archive during vendor-evaluation workflows, or it becomes shelf-ware.
Low effort: self-service setup with guided onboarding
Academy for Feargate
Work through it in order: the course for this service first, then the modules behind it.
No Academy modules are published for this service yet. Browse the full Academy
Why this category matters
The commercial case before the tooling.
Core concepts
The mental model you need to price and scope the work.
- Signal Triangulation ThresholdConcept
Signal Triangulation Threshold is the rule that a trend only earns a place in client strategy once it appears across three independent monitoring lenses: discovery, change detection, and human curation. A single spike on a discovery platform is noise; the same shift surfacing in a monitored competitor page and in a practitioner's own words is a signal worth a retainer conversation. The threshold matters because agencies sell judgment, and a recommendation built on one algorithmic feed is easy for a client to replicate for free. Exploding Topics can flag a category climbing 12+ months early, Visualping can confirm a competitor quietly rewrote its pricing page, and Recordal can show the operator behind that competitor saying why on a podcast. Three lenses, one story. Two lenses, a hypothesis. One lens, a bookmark. The discipline is refusing to bill strategy against a single source.
- Signal Decay Half-LifeConcept
Signal Decay Half-Life is the window between when a trend first appears in monitoring feeds and when it becomes common knowledge in a client's category. A signal's half-life is short when the source is a broad aggregator and long when the source is a narrow, high-friction channel. Agencies that treat every alert as equally urgent burn delivery hours chasing spikes that clients already saw; agencies that map each source to a decay window can time content, positioning, and campaign work to land while the signal still carries an edge. The practical move is to sort monitoring sources by how fast they propagate. A daily digest of firsthand interviews, like Recordal, tends to surface operator thinking weeks before trade press picks it up, while a general AI news aggregator such as AI News Report compresses that window to days. Pairing a slow channel with a fast one gives an agency both lead time and confirmation before committing retainer hours.
- Noise Floor DisciplineConcept
Noise Floor Discipline treats every monitoring feed as a finite attention budget rather than an infinite discovery channel. Each alert an agency adds to a client retainer consumes review time, and once daily signal volume crosses the point where a strategist can no longer read every item, the team starts skimming. Skimming is where weak signals die: the genuinely early pattern looks identical to the 40 routine page diffs sitting beside it. The discipline is to set a hard ceiling on alerts per client per week, then force every new source to displace an existing one rather than stack on top. Visualping's AI importance filtering exists precisely because raw change detection on a competitor pricing page can fire daily, while Recordal's daily digest of firsthand founder content is bounded by design. Google's TimesFM-3, released September 12, 2026, points the other direction: forecasting models can rank which signals deserve human review instead of alerting on everything.
Decision and risk
How to judge the fit, and the ways it goes wrong.
- Trend Monitoring Rule: Triangulate Weak Signals Before You Pitch ThemEvaluation Rule
Require at least two independent signal sources to agree before a trend enters a client deliverable, and log the disagreement when they do not.
- Trend Monitoring Rule: Score Signal Durability Before You Bill For ItEvaluation Rule
Require a signal to clear three independent sources and a 30-day persistence check before it enters any client-facing recommendation or retainer deliverable.
- The Signal-to-Noise Trap: Why Trend & Signal Monitoring Stalls Agency RetainersFailure Pattern
- The Novelty Bias Trap: Why Trend & Signal Monitoring Fails to Move Client BudgetsFailure Pattern
8 modules selected for Feargate
Frequently Asked Questions
Answers about pricing, setup
Feargate tracks public statements made by AI leaders and executives, assigns deadlines to their predictions, and fact-checks outcomes against the claims using sourced evidence. Each claim receives a verdict (false, overhyped, or likely false) with supporting documentation. The archive is searchable by subject, lab, or person, allowing teams to quickly surface prediction misses when evaluating AI vendor credibility or building AI adoption risk assessments for clients.
Feargate offers 1 pricing tier, at $100/mo (plus).
Strategists use Feargate to research AI vendor credibility and prediction accuracy when building AI adoption roadmaps or risk frameworks for clients. Account Executives cite Feargate verdicts during vendor-evaluation conversations to replace marketing claims with documented outcomes. Founders and Operations leaders use the archive when deciding whether to adopt a new AI tool internally, cross-referencing vendor promises against past prediction misses. Project Managers filter claims by subject to surface relevant prediction patterns for specific client verticals or use cases.
For a Strategist or Account Executive conducting vendor-credibility research, Feargate saves 2-4 hours per week by replacing manual fact-checking and prediction-tracking with a searchable, verdict-assigned archive. The time savings scale with the frequency of AI vendor evaluations your team conducts. If your team evaluates new AI tools or advises clients on AI adoption fewer than once per month, savings will be lower.
Feargate is a standalone web archive and does not publish API documentation or integrations with CRM, project management, or proposal software. Teams use Feargate by searching the archive directly during vendor-evaluation workflows, then copying verdicts and evidence into client decks or internal decision documents manually. If your team requires automated claim-checking or embedded verdicts in your proposal software, Feargate's current feature set does not support that workflow.
Feargate tracks 59 claims as of September 2026, with ongoing monitoring of deadlines and new predictions from AI leaders. The archive does not publish a public update schedule or SLA for claim verification. If you need real-time updates on specific predictions, you should monitor Feargate's website directly or contact the team for update frequency details.
Feargate's archive focuses on public statements from OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, Meta, xAI, Microsoft, Google, and Stability AI. If your clients ask about smaller vendors, open-source projects, or regional AI labs, Feargate will have limited or no coverage. The tool is most valuable for teams advising on adoption of major-lab models or evaluating partnerships with tier-one AI companies.
Feargate is a read-only archive; your team does not store data in the tool. If you cancel your subscription, you lose access to the searchable interface and filters, but the public archive remains available at feargate.org for free browsing. Any notes, decks, or client documents your team created using Feargate verdicts remain in your own systems.