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

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

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

NEAR Returns to AI Origins: From Payroll Struggles to Blockchain, Now Focusing on AI Agents and Privacy NEAR Protocol's journey began not with grand blockchain ambitions, but from a practical hurdle: its AI startup founders, including Transformer paper co-author Illia Polosukhin, couldn't efficiently pay international developers in 2017. This led them to pivot and build a high-performance, scalable blockchain. After years navigating various crypto narratives like sharding and cross-chain interoperability, NEAR is now leveraging its AI roots to re-enter the AI arena. A key driver is its "NEAR Intents" layer, which abstracts complex cross-chain transactions. Users simply state their goal (e.g., swap BTC for ETH), and a solver network finds the optimal route. This system has processed over $20B in cross-chain volume, generating significant fee revenue. A major growth area is private transactions via "Confidential Intents/Swaps," which hide trade details until settlement to protect against MEV and front-running. Remarkably, private swaps recently accounted for over 40% of NEAR's transaction volume, highlighting strong demand but also potential regulatory scrutiny. With its AI-founder pedigree, NEAR is positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain, AI agents, and privacy, aiming to become infrastructure for the emerging agent economy while navigating the challenges of its rapid adoption.

marsbit5m ago

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

marsbit5m ago

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

In recent discussions, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," a framework defining core values for Ethereum's development. CROPS stands for Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. Initially outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's "EF Mandate," it represents a commitment to user sovereignty, ensuring that the network resists external control, remains open, protects privacy, and prioritizes security. The relevance of CROPS extends beyond Ethereum's foundational principles, becoming crucial in the context of AI integration. As AI agents begin handling wallet operations and automated transactions, the risk increases that users may cede control over their digital assets, privacy, and intentions to centralized AI service providers. A "CROPS AI" would therefore emphasize local execution where possible, privacy-preserving remote model calls (e.g., using zero-knowledge proofs), and transparent, verifiable processes to maintain user agency. Vitalik highlights a significant convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layer" and "CROPS AI." Both address the same fundamental challenge: how users can access powerful services—be it blockchain data via RPCs or AI models—without exposing sensitive information or relinquishing ultimate control. This intersection points toward a future digital entry point that is more private, secure, and user-controlled. Ultimately, CROPS is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical guidepost. It steers development—from protocol resilience and wallet design to AI agent safety—towards a future where users retain self-sovereignty even as digital systems grow more complex and powerful. In an era of accelerating AI adoption, these "slow variables" of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security may define Ethereum's enduring value.

marsbit15m ago

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

marsbit15m ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit1h ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit1h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit1h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

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