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

9.42 Million Retail Investors Compete for Changxin Technology, Who Got Allotted?

Evergreen Technology's IPO subscription results are now available. On July 20, the domestic memory chip giant announced the offline preliminary allotment results and online lottery results for its IPO. A total of approximately 9.43 million retail investors participated in the online subscription, generating 770,000 winning lots with a final winning rate of about 0.4714%, setting a record for new shares on the STAR Market. After triggering a clawback mechanism from institutional to retail investors, the online retail allocation was significantly increased to 3.851 billion shares. Simultaneously, 285 institutional investors participated in the offline subscription, ultimately receiving 2.173 billion shares at an allotment rate of approximately 0.1756%. Leading insurers and public funds were among the major recipients. Notably, Liang Wenfeng, founder of the major AI model company DeepSeek, through his quantitative investment firms Ningbo Huanfang Quantitative and Zhejiang Jiuzhang Asset, secured the largest share among private funds, with a total allotment worth approximately 175 million yuan. Estimates suggest potential profits could reach 730 million yuan if Evergreen Technology's market capitalization reaches 3 trillion yuan post-listing. The company is expected to list on July 27 and could become the highest-valued tech stock on the A-share market, with various brokerages providing valuations ranging from 1 trillion to over 4 trillion yuan. However, recent significant corrections in global tech stocks may impact its post-listing performance. (Character count: 1,196)

marsbit42m ago

9.42 Million Retail Investors Compete for Changxin Technology, Who Got Allotted?

marsbit42m ago

L2 'Recalibration': When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

The article discusses the evolving relationship between Ethereum's Layer 1 (L1) and Layer 2 (L2) solutions, moving beyond the initial "L2 for scaling" model. As Ethereum L1 itself scales (increasing Gas Limit, statelessness, zkEVM), the unique value proposition of L2s shifts from merely providing cheap execution to offering differentiated features like application-specific optimization, privacy, and flexible governance. The piece explores three key themes: 1. **L2's New Role:** L2s are transitioning from a pure scaling technology to a spectrum of execution environments with varying degrees of security inheritance from Ethereum L1. 2. **Interoperability as State Trust:** Solving L2 fragmentation is less about cross-chain bridges and more about enabling faster, trust-minimized state verification between environments. This involves initiatives like faster L1 finality, intent-based architectures (Open Intents Framework), and native account abstraction. 3. **Blurring Layers:** With the potential integration of zk-proofs into L1 validation (making L1 akin to its own "Rollup") and the concept of "Native Rollups," the rigid boundary between L1 and L2 may fade. The future could be a unified system with multiple execution domains (for DeFi, gaming, privacy, etc.) sharing a common security, settlement, and state framework. In conclusion, Ethereum's goal is not to abandon L2s or re-centralize everything on L1, but to re-integrate the fragmented user experience—liquidity, accounts, applications—while preserving the scaling benefits of a multi-environment ecosystem. The endgame is a cohesive "one chain" feeling for users, powered by diverse but securely interconnected execution layers.

marsbit1h ago

L2 'Recalibration': When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

marsbit1h 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