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

RBK-cryptoОпубликовано 2025-12-24Обновлено 2025-12-24

Введение

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

Связанные с этим вопросы

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.

Похожее

Codex Goal Mode Usage Guide: How to Make AI Continuously Pursue a Specific Objective

"Codex Goal Mode: How to Make AI Work Continuously Toward a Specific Goal" OpenAI's Codex "goal mode" (/goal) transforms the AI from a reactive code assistant into a proactive execution agent capable of working autonomously for hours or even days to achieve a defined objective. To maximize its effectiveness, follow these key principles: 1. **Define Clear, Verifiable Exit Criteria:** The goal prompt should be a concise, measurable success condition, not a lengthy specification. Use quantifiable metrics like "reduce build time by 30%" or "achieve 100% test parity." 2. **Provide Initial Guidance and Tools:** Direct Codex toward likely problem areas and specify available tools (e.g., browsers, testing environments) to prevent it from exploring unproductive paths. 3. **Enable Progress Measurement:** Equip Codex with ways to track advancement, such as creating comparison tools for visual tasks or evaluation sets, ensuring it can gauge its own progress. 4. **Use a Realistic Execution Environment:** For tasks like performance optimization, provide access to environments that closely mimic production (e.g., similar configs, databases) to yield valid results. 5. **Be Cautious with Visual Goals:** Avoid vague "pixel-perfect" instructions. Instead, supplement visual references with functional checklists or design system specifications to prevent Codex from obsessing over minor details. 6. **Implement Progress Tracking:** For long-running tasks, have Codex commit code to draft PRs, update progress documents, or send Slack updates to maintain visibility into its work. 7. **Review and Consolidate Results:** Once the goal is met, instruct Codex to review its work, clean up ineffective experimental code, and reflect on what strategies succeeded or failed. Ultimately, using goal mode shifts the developer's role from writing prompts to managing a persistent engineering agent—defining objectives, establishing metrics, configuring environments, and conducting final reviews.

marsbit14 мин. назад

Codex Goal Mode Usage Guide: How to Make AI Continuously Pursue a Specific Objective

marsbit14 мин. назад

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly Is This 'Slow Variable' That Vitalik Has Repeatedly Emphasized?

Recently, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," first outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's March mandate as core principles guiding its focus: Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. CROPS represents Ethereum's commitment to providing foundational capabilities for user sovereignty—enabling asset ownership, identity expression, and coordination without reliance on centralized platforms or surrendering ultimate control. This framework is gaining new urgency with the rise of AI, particularly AI agents managing digital assets and automating transactions. While AI offers convenience, it risks centralizing user data, intent, and control if dependent on opaque, centralized services. Vitalik argues for "CROPS AI"—AI that is open, privacy-preserving, secure, and capable of local execution to maintain user agency. He highlights convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layers" and "CROPS AI," such as using zero-knowledge proofs for private remote LLM calls and Ethereum RPC reads, ensuring users can access services without exposing sensitive information. Ultimately, CROPS is not just an abstract ideal but a practical guide for Ethereum's development and AI integration. It addresses the critical long-term question: as digital systems grow more powerful, how can users retain control over their privacy, assets, and autonomy? In an AI-driven era, these principles may define Ethereum's enduring value—prioritizing verifiable, secure, and user-centric design over short-term optimizations like speed and cost alone.

marsbit18 мин. назад

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly Is This 'Slow Variable' That Vitalik Has Repeatedly Emphasized?

marsbit18 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Неделя обучения по популярным токенам (2): 2026 может стать годом приложений реального времени, сектор AI продолжает оставаться в тренде

2025 год — год институциональных инвесторов, в будущем он будет доминировать в приложениях реального времени.

1.8k просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.12.16Обновлено 2025.12.16

Неделя обучения по популярным токенам (2): 2026 может стать годом приложений реального времени, сектор AI продолжает оставаться в тренде

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на AI (AI) представлены ниже.

活动图片