AI Outperforms Humans in Cryptocurrency Trading Tournament. What Were the Results?

RBK-cryptoPublished on 2025-12-24Last updated on 2025-12-24

Abstract

An AI vs. human crypto trading tournament, organized by the Aster exchange, concluded with AI models collectively outperforming human traders. The human team suffered aggregate losses exceeding 32% of their initial capital ($225k), while the AI team lost less than 4.5% ($13.5k). The competition featured 70 selected human traders and 30 AI models, including Claude Sonnet 4.5, ChatGPT 5, Grok 4, and DeepSeek 3.1. Each participant was given $10,000 to trade futures contracts. The AI models operated solely on prompts without additional training, code, memory of past trades, or access to external data. The overall top performer was a human trader, ProMint, with a profit of $13.6k. The best AI, an aggressively configured Claude Sonnet 4.5, earned $8.09k, placing 8th in the overall standings. Only 8 AI models were profitable, with 4 earning over $1k. In contrast, 30 human traders lost almost their entire deposit, though 21 others profited over $1k. The results contrast with a previous AI-only experiment in October, where most models also finished with losses, and DeepSeek and QWEN3 were the winners.

"RBC-Crypto" does not provide investment advice; the material is published for informational purposes only. Cryptocurrency is a volatile asset that can lead to financial losses.

On December 23, the two-week trading competition "Human vs AI" between teams of humans and artificial intelligence (AI) models concluded. According to the results of the event held by the Aster exchange, the combined losses of the team of real participants amounted to more than 32% of the initial capital, or minus $225 thousand. The AI team collectively lost less than 4.5%, or nearly $13.5 thousand.

The tournament involved 70 traders selected by the Aster team and 30 AI models, including Claude Sonnet 4.5, ChatGPT 5, Grok 4, DeepSeek 3.1. The models were also categorized by trading type—balanced, conservative, aggressive.

According to the terms, only standard LLMs without additional training were used. Each competition participant received $10 thousand for trading cryptocurrency futures contracts, where Aster covered the losses, and traders could keep the profit.

The trading logic of the models was managed exclusively through prompts, without code, agents, or external data. Each decision had to be made on a clean model without memory of past trades. Any external data (news, social networks, on-chain signals) was prohibited. All orders were executed on the real market with real funds.

A trader under the nickname ProMint took first place in the PnL (Profit and Loss) indicator, earning $13.6 thousand. The best AI agent, Claude Sonnet 4.5 with an aggressive setting, showed a result of $8.09 thousand and was only in eighth place in the overall standings.

Only 5 AI models lost more than $1.5 thousand of their deposit, three of which had aggressive trading types in their settings. The worst result was shown by the ChatGPT 5 model, which lost $5 thousand. Only eight AI models managed to make a profit; only four models earned more than $1 thousand, three of which are Claude Sonnet models.

Notably, 30 human traders lost almost their entire deposit. Another six lost between $8.7 thousand and $9.8 thousand. Nine traders lost between $700 and $4.6 thousand. The remaining participants either did not lose or earned money—21 participants earned more than $1 thousand, eight of them made a profit above $8 thousand.

In October, a similar experiment was conducted by the Nof1 lab, but exclusively between six AI models with the same $10 thousand deposit. As a result of the two-week competition, four out of six finished with losses of up to 60%. The two winners were DeepSeek and QWEN3, which finished trading with profits of $489 and $2232, respectively. ChatGPT lost $6267, Gemini lost $5671, Grok lost $4531, and Claude Sonnet lost $3081.

Who the Central Bank Will Allow to Trade Cryptocurrency in Russia. The Main Points

Miner "Capitulation" Called a Bullish Factor. Why

The Price of 85% of Tokens Launched in 2025 Fell Below Their Market Entry Price

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat were the overall results of the 'Human vs AI' crypto trading tournament in terms of total losses?

AThe human team collectively lost over 32% of their initial capital, amounting to a loss of $225,000. The AI team collectively lost less than 4.5%, or nearly $13,500.

QWhich AI model was the top performer in the tournament and what was its profit?

AThe Claude Sonnet 4.5 AI model with an aggressive trading setting was the top AI, generating a profit of $8,090. However, it only ranked 8th in the overall standings.

QWhat were the rules regarding the use of AI models and data in the competition?

AOnly standard LLMs without additional training were used. Trading logic was managed solely through prompts, without code, agents, or external data. Each decision was made on a clean model with no memory of past trades, and external data like news or on-chain signals was prohibited.

QHow did the human trader ProMint perform in the competition?

AThe human trader ProMint took first place in the PnL (Profit and Loss) metric, earning a profit of $13,600.

QHow many AI models were able to generate a profit, and which model performed the worst?

AOnly eight AI models were able to generate a profit. The worst-performing model was ChatGPT 5, which lost $5,000.

Related Reads

a16z: From Companies to DAOs, DUNA May Become the Next Generation Organizational Form

This article, "From Companies to DAOs: How DUNA Could Become the Next Organizational Form," traces the 500-year evolution of business collaboration. It begins with medieval structures like the *commenda* and Florentine *compagnia*, which exposed partners to personal risk. The modern corporation, exemplified by the Dutch East India Company (VOC), was a revolutionary leap, enabling large-scale, capital-intensive ventures by offering limited liability and reducing coordination costs. However, corporations introduced new challenges like principal-agent problems and bureaucratic overhead. The piece argues that software and internet-native protocols are now reducing these traditional overheads. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) emerged as a new model for coordination without centralized management. Yet, DAOs face a significant legal vacuum: they lack legal recognition, leaving members exposed to unlimited personal liability, and their tokens are vulnerable to being classified as securities under unclear regulations (e.g., the Howey Test). This has forced projects into suboptimal workarounds like offshore foundations. The article identifies the Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (DUNA) as a potential solution. Recently legalized in states like Wyoming, the DUNA provides a legal wrapper for decentralized networks. It grants key protections—legal personality, limited liability, and perpetual existence—to a group without imposing a traditional hierarchical management structure. This allows token-holder communities to govern, hold assets, and contract as a single legal entity, aligning with their decentralized nature. While DUNA doesn't solve all governance challenges or magically resolve securities law questions, it represents a crucial step. It fills the legal recognition gap, offering a native legal form for internet-scale, decentralized collaboration and extending the separation of personal risk from organizational venture into a new domain.

marsbit28m ago

a16z: From Companies to DAOs, DUNA May Become the Next Generation Organizational Form

marsbit28m ago

2026 Mid-Year Report On-Chain RWA: Tokenized Stock Market Cap Doubles in a Year, But 90% of Rights Are Hollow Shells

The 2026 Mid-Year Report on On-Chain RWA highlights a significant growth in tokenized stock market capitalization, which nearly doubled from $951 million in March to $1.89 billion by July. However, the report reveals a fundamental contradiction in this "layer 2.5" ecosystem: products with the strongest legal foundation (like regulated U.S. infrastructure) lack liquidity and distribution, while freely tradable offshored wrapper products often lack substantive ownership rights. The increase is driven largely by a few products (SECZ, FGRS, STRCx) and platforms (Ondo, xStocks, Securitize collectively hold over 85% share). While distributed value across networks like Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain has grown, the market remains fragmented. Products referencing the same underlying asset (e.g., Apple stock) are distinct legal liabilities with different intermediaries and jurisdictional rules, offering varying degrees of legal claim. The report cautions that headline numbers are misleading, as they reflect changes in distributed token value—driven by issuance, conversions, and price movements—not pure investor inflows. True "canonical shares" with legal ownership, wide wallet distribution, institutional liquidity, and independent on-chain price discovery do not yet exist at scale. Tokenized treasuries show stronger product-market fit, and ETFs may be easier to scale than single stocks. The core takeaway is a trade-off: legal certainty versus liquidity and composability.

marsbit1h ago

2026 Mid-Year Report On-Chain RWA: Tokenized Stock Market Cap Doubles in a Year, But 90% of Rights Are Hollow Shells

marsbit1h ago

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: 594 Bitcoin Withdrawn in 25 Minutes

The Coldcard hardware wallet has been compromised, with hackers stealing approximately 594.5 Bitcoin (~$40 million) from 500 addresses in just 25 minutes. The root cause was a critical software bug, undetected for five years, which disabled the device's secure chip for generating true random numbers. This led to the creation of private keys based on predictable data like the processor's serial number, drastically reducing cryptographic security. The attackers exploited this offline by brute-forcing possible seed phrases, finding active addresses on the public ledger, and signing transactions. Initially, Coinkite (Coldcard's maker) claimed only older models were at risk but later admitted all devices running the compromised firmware were vulnerable. CEO Rodolphe Novak (NVK) apologized but ruled out financial compensation for affected users. To secure funds, owners must urgently update their firmware to specific safe versions, generate a completely new seed phrase on the updated device, and transfer all assets to new addresses created with that new seed. While a BIP-39 passphrase can help, it does not replace this migration process. Other Coinkite products like TAPSIGNER were not affected. This incident underscores that even specialized hardware requires rigorous, independent code audits, especially for cryptographic functions. It parallels past failures, like a 2006 OpenSSL bug in Debian, and raises questions about whether automated code analysis can ever fully replace human scrutiny in critical security areas.

cryptonews.ru3h ago

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: 594 Bitcoin Withdrawn in 25 Minutes

cryptonews.ru3h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片