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

Bitcoin Withdrawals Continue: 8 Years of Storage in a Coldcard Cold Wallet Ended in Zero

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: Losses Mount Due to Vulnerable Seed Generation A critical vulnerability in Coldcard hardware wallets has led to a continued wave of fund thefts. According to Galaxy Research, the total stolen has reached 1,367.05 BTC (approx. $88.6 million) from 4,585 addresses, a significant increase from the initial 594.5 BTC reported on July 30, 2026. Most of the stolen funds remain on the attackers' addresses. The issue is not with the current firmware, which Coinkite has updated, but with seed phrases generated on vulnerable devices between March 2021 and the release of fixed firmware versions. Due to a programmer error, devices switched from using a hardware random number generator to the software-based Yasmarang generator, which was initialized with publicly accessible data like the chip's serial number. This made the seed phrases predictable through offline brute-force attacks, meaning wallets remain at risk until funds are moved to a new wallet generated with the patched firmware. Affected devices include Mk2/Mk3 with firmware 4.0.1–4.1.9 (and up to 5.0.3), Mk4/Mk5 up to version 5.6.0, and Q models up to 1.5.0Q. The only exceptions are seeds created with a high-entropy method like at least 50 independent dice rolls or a strong unique BIP-39 passphrase. All other owners must generate a new seed on the fixed firmware and transfer their assets. A case highlighting the human impact involves a 39-year-old long-term investor who lost 2 BTC (approx. $130,000) in minutes. He had accumulated the Bitcoin over eight years through physical labor, viewing it as a financial lifeline and a retirement plan in a country suffering from hyperinflation. His story underscores that even conservative "buy and hold in cold storage" strategies can be compromised by such underlying technical flaws. From a technical perspective, this incident echoes historical failures where weak random number generators undermined cryptographic security, challenging the assumption that offline storage is automatically foolproof.

cryptonews.ru1h ago

Bitcoin Withdrawals Continue: 8 Years of Storage in a Coldcard Cold Wallet Ended in Zero

cryptonews.ru1h 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