DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 4

Binance, ByBit, and BitGet Cancel SpaceX Tokenized Allocations After Share Shortage

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

The rapid growth of tokenized financial assets has opened new opportunities for investors worldwide, allowing access to previously exclusive markets through blockchain technology. One of the most anticipated developments in this space was the introduction of tokenized shares linked to SpaceX, the private aerospace giant founded by Elon Musk.

However, enthusiasm surrounding these offerings was recently tempered when major cryptocurrency exchanges Binance, ByBit, and BitGet were forced to cancel portions of their SpaceX tokenized share allocations due to an unexpected shortage of underlying shares.

Tokenized stocks are digital assets that represent ownership or exposure to traditional equities. They enable investors to trade fractional interests in companies on blockchain networks, often with lower barriers to entry than conventional brokerage platforms.

Because SpaceX remains a privately held company, direct investment opportunities are typically limited to institutional investors, venture capital firms, and accredited participants.

The arrival of tokenized SpaceX exposure therefore generated substantial excitement among retail investors eager to participate in the company’s growth story. Demand for the tokenized SpaceX products significantly exceeded expectations.

Investors were attracted by SpaceX’s dominant position in commercial spaceflight, its rapidly expanding Starlink satellite internet business, and its growing role in government and defense contracts. The company has become one of the most valuable private enterprises in the world, making any investment vehicle linked to its valuation highly sought after.

The success of the offering exposed a key challenge within the tokenization ecosystem: the need for sufficient backing assets. Tokenized shares are generally expected to be supported by real underlying securities or equivalent financial arrangements. As demand surged, the available pool of SpaceX shares allocated for tokenization proved insufficient.

This imbalance created a shortage that prevented exchanges from fulfilling all investor subscriptions. As a result, Binance, ByBit, and BitGet announced the cancellation of certain allocations tied to the SpaceX tokenized products. Investors affected by the cancellations were expected to receive refunds or have their orders reversed according to the terms established by each platform.

While the exchanges emphasized that the issue stemmed from a supply constraint rather than a technological failure, the incident highlighted the operational complexities involved in bringing private-market assets onto blockchain networks.

The cancellation also raises broader questions about transparency and liquidity in tokenized private equity markets.

Unlike publicly traded stocks, private company shares are not freely available in large quantities. Acquiring and maintaining sufficient inventory can be challenging, particularly when investor demand accelerates rapidly. Exchanges and tokenization providers must carefully manage these limitations to ensure that tokenized assets remain fully backed and compliant with applicable regulations.

Despite the setback, many industry observers view the episode as evidence of strong investor appetite rather than a failure of the tokenization model. The overwhelming demand for SpaceX-linked products demonstrates the growing desire among global investors to access high-profile private companies through digital assets.

It also underscores the potential for blockchain-based financial infrastructure to expand participation in markets that have historically been restricted. Exchanges may adopt stricter allocation procedures, improved disclosure standards, and more robust inventory management systems to avoid similar shortages.

As tokenized securities continue to evolve, balancing accessibility with asset availability will remain a critical challenge. The SpaceX allocation cancellations serve as a reminder that while tokenization offers exciting possibilities, its success ultimately depends on the integrity and availability of the real-world assets that underpin the digital tokens.

Animoca Brands Founder Siu Says Creativity Will Become the Most Valuable Human Skill in the AI Era

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

As warnings mount from some of the world’s leading artificial intelligence developers about job losses and societal disruption, Animoca Brands co-founder Yat Siu is offering a sharply different vision of the future, arguing that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it destroys and usher in an economy where human creativity becomes the most prized asset.

Speaking on the sidelines of the SuperAI conference in Singapore, Siu challenged the increasingly common narrative that AI will trigger mass unemployment, instead portraying the technology as a force that could free people from repetitive work and allow them to focus on uniquely human capabilities.

Concerns over AI’s impact on employment have intensified, prompting varying opinions from business leaders. Executives at leading AI companies, including Anthropic, have warned that advances in automation could eliminate large numbers of entry-level white-collar jobs. Those concerns have gained traction as AI systems become increasingly capable of performing tasks once reserved for skilled professionals, including coding, research, customer support, and content generation.

Siu, however, argues that such assessments underestimate humanity’s ability to adapt and the broader economic opportunities created by technological change.

From industrial labor to creative labor

At the heart of Siu’s argument is the belief that modern education and employment systems have conditioned people to operate like machines, rewarding repetition, compliance, and standardized processes over originality.

“We’re born creative, and we’re losing our creativity to fit into a system because we’re trying to be turned into machines and do actions that are sort of regular,” Siu said.

Artificial intelligence, he argues, could reverse that trend.

Rather than competing with humans in areas where machines excel, such as data processing, pattern recognition, and coding, workers may increasingly focus on creativity, strategy, leadership, collaboration, and innovation.

“From an optimistic standpoint, that means we can all be free to be creative, because machines can ultimately deliver what we need to do on that side of things, while we can be truly human,” he said.

While some executives warn that AI could fundamentally undermine labor markets, others see it as a productivity tool that will reshape jobs rather than eliminate them.

The coming commoditization of intelligence

Siu’s argument is rooted in a broader economic observation: if AI can perform many forms of intellectual labor at near-zero marginal cost, intelligence itself may become commoditized.

“The superpower of an AI is it can code everything,” he said.

According to Siu, coding capabilities will eventually exceed those of most human programmers, accelerating a trend already visible across the technology sector, where AI-assisted software development is becoming standard practice.

Its coding skills, he said, “will eventually surpass that of humans.”

That shift could dramatically alter how companies assess talent.

“We have a real commoditization on capability and intelligence, which means that the skill has to be about creativity and coordination,” Siu added.

For decades, advanced education and specialized technical expertise have been among the most valuable economic assets. If AI lowers the scarcity value of those capabilities, competitive advantage may depend on imagination, judgment, interpersonal skills, and the ability to coordinate complex human activities.

Siu’s comments also serve as a direct rebuttal to the increasingly cautious tone emerging from some frontier AI companies. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has repeatedly warned that advanced AI systems could cause severe labor market disruption and create risks spanning cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, and national security.

Anthropic has also argued that governments should consider mechanisms to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development if safety research falls behind capability gains.

Asked about those concerns, Siu made clear that he falls into a different camp.

“Most people are going to be using AI in a way that would be beneficial,” he said.

“There’ll be a few people that will do bad things, they would have to be stopped, but… this, to me, doesn’t feel like it’s a nuclear arms race.”

That comparison is important because many AI safety advocates have described advanced AI development using language borrowed from nuclear deterrence and arms-control frameworks. Siu rejects that analogy, suggesting the benefits of widespread AI adoption are likely to outweigh the risks.

What it means for the future of work

The debate reveals one of the most important economic questions facing governments, businesses, and workers. Historically, technological revolutions have often displaced workers in the short term while creating entirely new industries and occupations over the longer term. The Industrial Revolution eliminated many forms of manual labor but generated manufacturing jobs. The internet destroyed some traditional business models while creating sectors that barely existed a generation earlier.

The uncertainty surrounding AI stems from its ability to automate cognitive tasks rather than merely physical ones. Even optimistic analysts acknowledge that significant disruption is likely as companies reorganize around AI-driven workflows.

Siu does not dismiss that challenge.

“AI is going to be creating a lot more jobs,” he said, while acknowledging that there will be “a disruption as well.”

The key question is whether the new opportunities emerge quickly enough to offset displacement and whether workers can successfully transition into roles that emphasize creativity, coordination and innovation.

Siu’s optimism is also consistent with Animoca Brands’ broader investment strategy. Founded in 2014, the company has built a portfolio of more than 600 businesses spanning gaming, decentralized finance, blockchain infrastructure, and tokenized real-world assets.

Many of those investments are based on the belief that digital technologies can create new forms of ownership, participation, and economic activity rather than merely replacing existing jobs. Viewed through that lens, AI represents not just an automation tool but a platform technology capable of generating entirely new markets and business models.

Inside Details of Trump Admin’s Anthropic Crackdown that Exposes Deepening AI Security Divide

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

The Trump administration’s decision to impose sweeping export controls on Anthropic’s most advanced artificial intelligence models has revealed an extraordinary clash between Washington and one of America’s leading AI companies.

The development has underpinned growing concerns inside government circles that frontier AI systems may be advancing faster than existing safeguards can contain.

New details published by Politico show the restrictions were imposed only after a frantic last-minute effort by senior administration officials to persuade Anthropic to voluntarily withdraw its newly released Claude Fable 5 model, which officials believed posed significant national security risks.

According to multiple administration officials cited in reports, the dispute escalated after concerns emerged that Fable 5’s security protections could potentially be bypassed, allowing users to access capabilities related to identifying software vulnerabilities and cyber weaknesses.

One of the most significant developments was the reported intervention by Amazon CEO Andy Jassy. According to people familiar with the matter, Jassy was among technology executives who raised concerns with senior Trump administration officials regarding the security implications of Anthropic’s latest models.

Amazon’s involvement carries particular weight because it is one of Anthropic’s largest strategic investors and cloud partners. The company has committed billions of dollars to Anthropic and hosts many of its AI services through Amazon Web Services.

Reports indicate Amazon was responding to a request from administration officials for feedback on the model’s capabilities and security profile.

Administration officials said findings presented by Amazon were subsequently reviewed alongside national security assessments, helping drive concerns inside the White House that the safeguards surrounding the model might not be sufficient.

An Amazon spokesperson declined to disclose details of discussions with government officials but noted that “it’s not uncommon for governments to seek our counsel on potential security risks.”

White House escalates concerns

The issue reportedly reached the highest levels of the Trump administration within days of Fable 5’s public release. Senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, White House Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, participated in discussions about the model and possible government responses.

The administration eventually held multiple calls with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. During those discussions, Amodei reportedly argued that officials had misunderstood the nature of the security concerns. According to officials familiar with the calls, Amodei defended the model’s safeguards and maintained that the reported vulnerability did not constitute a broad or universal jailbreak capable of disabling all protections.

Anthropic later echoed that position publicly, stating: “No testers have yet been able to find a universal jailbreak — a jailbreak method that can very broadly bypass the model’s safeguards, unblocking a wide range of cyber capabilities.”

The company also argued that the complete elimination of jailbreak risks remains impossible across the industry.

Anthropic said: “As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.”

The White House, however, remained unconvinced. According to officials involved in the discussions, administration leaders believed Anthropic was not treating the issue with sufficient urgency.

One senior White House official said, “Export controls were a last resort after begging them for hours to work with us.”

The official added: “This was not something we wanted to do, but our hands were tied.”

Another person familiar with the administration’s position said: “The crux of the issue was the lack of seriousness that Anthropic was applying to it.”

The person added: “Had Anthropic taken it seriously and, rather than dismissing it as isolated, moved to fix or pause access, this would have never happened.”

The administration ultimately imposed export controls that barred foreign nationals from accessing Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models. Because implementing nationality-based restrictions immediately proved operationally difficult, Anthropic responded by disabling access globally.

The development has sparked debate among AI policy experts. Even some advocates of stronger export controls questioned the breadth of the restrictions.

Jimmy Goodrich, a senior fellow at the University of California’s Institute for Global Conflict and Cooperation, criticized the approach.

“This was not well thought-out,” he said.

“It even bans Canadians and Brits employed at Anthropic from doing research and development.”

The controversy highlights the challenge policymakers face as AI models increasingly acquire capabilities that blur the line between commercial software and technologies with potential military or cyber warfare applications.

Implications for China and Anthropic’s IPO Ambitions

The restrictions are expected to have significant implications beyond the United States. Anthropic’s latest models had already become a target of interest among Chinese AI developers seeking to study and replicate frontier AI techniques.

Although Anthropic’s services were never officially available in China, developers frequently relied on workarounds to access the company’s systems.

Industry analysts believe Fable 5’s stricter controls could make that substantially harder. Kyle Chan, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently noted that Chinese developers may find it “nearly impossible” to use Anthropic’s newest systems to accelerate development of competing models.

That outcome aligns with broader Trump administration efforts to restrict China’s access to advanced AI capabilities, high-end semiconductors, and related technologies.

The timing is notable because Anthropic recently filed confidentially for a U.S. initial public offering. The company is widely regarded as one of the most valuable AI firms in the world, with an estimated valuation approaching $1 trillion.

The dispute thus introduces a new layer of regulatory uncertainty just as investors prepare to evaluate some of the largest AI-related public offerings in history. Market participants are already closely watching the recent blockbuster SpaceX IPO as a gauge of investor appetite for mega-cap technology listings.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and other frontier AI firms are expected to follow closely behind.

The latest confrontation with Washington may therefore become an important test case for how governments regulate increasingly powerful AI systems while attempting to preserve innovation and maintain national security.

A broader struggle over who controls AI

The Anthropic dispute reflects a deeper question that is increasingly shaping the AI industry: who ultimately decides how advanced AI systems can be deployed?

For years, companies such as Anthropic have argued that AI firms should help shape safety standards because they possess the deepest technical expertise. Now, the Trump administration’s intervention signals a different view — that when frontier models reach capabilities with potential national security implications, government authorities may be willing to act aggressively and unilaterally.

Former White House AI adviser David Sacks summed up the administration’s position after the restrictions were imposed.

“The Admin wants all of this to happen as soon as possible,” Sacks wrote.

“It is frankly bewildered that Anthropic hasn’t wanted to comply with safety requests that it previously said were its highest priority.”

China’s Universities Overhaul Curricula in Sweeping Shift Toward Tech and AI, Cutting 12,000 “Obsolete” Degrees

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

China’s universities are undertaking one of the most significant academic overhauls in recent memory, revoking or suspending thousands of traditional degree programs while rapidly introducing new, technology-focused majors aligned with Beijing’s push for high-tech self-reliance and economic transformation.

Between 2021 and 2025, higher education institutions across the country eliminated or paused 12,200 undergraduate programs and launched 10,200 new ones, meaning more than 30% of all university programs underwent adjustments, according to Ministry of Education data reported by Xinhua.

According to Hong Kong Post, the changes are heavily concentrated in fields now viewed as oversaturated or outdated, arts, humanities, foreign languages, and management, while new offerings emphasize emerging technologies such as embodied intelligence, advanced AI applications, and other strategic sectors prioritized under national development plans.

This massive reshuffling reflects two pressing realities: the need to align higher education with Beijing’s “AI Plus” and “future industries” initiatives, and the urgent challenge of addressing a severe graduate employment crisis. With youth unemployment hovering above 16% and millions of young people struggling to find work matching their qualifications, universities are under pressure to produce graduates with skills relevant to an economy increasingly driven by artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and technological innovation.

The University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, for example, halted admissions for its product design program this year. A recent graduate from the program, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the topic, linked the decision directly to AI’s disruptive impact.

“The rapid development of AI has hit product design hard. Many core tasks, such as modelling and rendering, can now be handled by AI,” the student said.

At the prestigious Communication University of China in Beijing, a media-focused institution, officials merged its cinematography program with film and television production. Alumni described the move as a practical response to industry shifts. Song Song, a videographer who graduated in 2012, noted how the transition from film to digital, and now to short videos and live streaming, has fundamentally changed skill requirements.

“With the rise of live streaming and short videos, the requirements for a cameraman are completely different from traditional television news shooting. Changes in education are absolutely necessary,” Song said.

Many of the new programs introduced are closely tied to national priorities. Nine universities have added majors in embodied intelligence, supporting Beijing’s drive to integrate next-generation AI into the physical economy. Other additions focus on semiconductors, quantum technologies, new energy, and advanced materials — areas where China seeks to reduce dependence on foreign technology.

A Response to Structural Challenges

The reforms come as China’s higher education system has expanded dramatically, producing record numbers of graduates into a job market transformed by automation and digitalization. Many traditional degrees no longer guarantee employment, prompting universities to adapt quickly — sometimes at the expense of program stability.

Senior researcher Chu Zhaohui at the National Institute of Education Sciences pointed out that some of the recently cut programs were themselves only a few years old, part of an earlier wave of adjustments.

Chu advocated for a more flexible approach rather than repeated wholesale swaps, saying: “This would allow them to select courses based on their personal interests, unique strengths, and their demand for different career paths, ultimately building their own distinctive intellectual profile.”

Parents and students are also adapting their expectations. Vincent Zhao, a 48-year-old media production company owner in Beijing, encouraged his daughter to pursue statistics and data governance when she started university last year.

“We focused on choosing a broad direction that aligns with what she likes and excels at, leaving room for either future postgraduate studies or employment. The old path — where you study one specific major, find a perfectly matched job, and stay in it stably for a lifetime — simply does not exist any more,” he said.

The AI Factor and Long-Term Adaptation

The drive is part of Beijing’s broader “AI Plus” initiative, which sets ambitious targets of 70% AI adoption across key sectors by 2027 and 90% by 2030. While this promises productivity gains and industrial upgrading, it is also accelerating job displacement in certain fields. Analysts warn that the speed of AI-driven change is outpacing the creation of new opportunities, particularly for young workers.

Some companies are already measuring AI adoption internally. At one major tech firm, employees are ranked by token usage, a proxy for AI engagement, with the metric factored into performance reviews and promotions.

“It is relatively forced. One should not use AI for the sake of it. I still can’t shake the feeling that I’m getting closer to being replaced,” A big data engineer there said, describing the pressure.

In entertainment, the shift has been particularly abrupt. Micro-drama studios have slashed staff as AI-generated actors and sets replace traditional production roles. A 22-year-old producer who was let go in February said her department shrank dramatically.

“We had 30-40 people in our production department. After the transition to AI, each group was cut down to about 10 people, with only two remaining for live-action filming,” she said.

A Necessary but Imperfect Transition

China’s higher education reforms reflect a recognition that the old model, specialized degrees leading to stable, lifetime careers, is no longer viable in an era of rapid technological disruption. The challenge lies in managing this transition without exacerbating social instability or youth disillusionment.

While the current wave of program adjustments provides a short-term response, experts like Chu argue that deeper structural changes, greater curriculum flexibility, stronger industry-academia links, and lifelong learning pathways will be essential for long-term success.

For now, the overhaul signals Beijing’s determination to steer the next generation toward fields it believes will drive China’s future competitiveness. The quiet but sweeping changes underway in lecture halls and administrative offices across the country are reshaping not just what students learn, but the very purpose of higher education.

Is Copy Trading Profitable? What On-Chain Data From 25 Million Trades Actually Shows

By
TI Partners
-
0

Copy trading promises easy returns by mirroring successful wallets. The concept is simple: find a trader who consistently makes money, copy their exact moves, and share in their results. But the gap between the promise and the reality is where most traders get hurt. On-chain data from platforms processing tens of millions of trades provides a more honest answer than any marketing claim, and the picture is more conditional than most copy trading guides admit.

What On-Chain Copy Trading Actually Measures

The model you probably know from platforms like eToro works by mirroring portfolio allocations: if the trader you follow puts 20% of their account into an asset, your account does the same. On-chain copy trading is different in a way that matters.

On-chain copy trading mirrors individual transactions in real time, at the wallet level. Every buy a target wallet executes triggers an equivalent buy in your account, using the same token, executing on the same blockchain. Every sell triggers your sell. There is no percentage allocation, no rebalancing. You are following the actual trades, not the portfolio composition.

The data advantage here is real. Because every transaction is recorded on-chain, you can verify every entry, every exit, every position size, and the exact PnL for every wallet you are considering. Nothing is self-reported. The blockchain is the ledger. This is why on-chain copy trading is structurally more transparent than any centralized copy trading product, and it is also why the failure modes are more visible once you look for them. For a detailed breakdown of how on-chain copy trading works at the technical level, this overview from the Banana Gun blog covers the mechanics well.

When Copy Trading Works, and the Numbers Behind It

Across 25.3 million lifetime trades processed by Banana Gun, a clear pattern emerges among the top-performing wallets for any given token. The top 50 wallets by PnL share three consistent characteristics: they enter positions early, they size those positions appropriately relative to the token liquidity, and they exit before the majority of retail volume arrives.

When you copy a wallet that demonstrates those behaviors consistently, and when your copy trade executes with minimal latency, the strategy produces results. The operative word is consistently. A wallet that returned 80x on one memecoin and lost 70% on the next three tokens is not a strategy you want to mirror. You want wallets with steady, positive PnL across multiple tokens over a minimum of three to four weeks.

Liquidity matters more than most beginners account for. If you are copying a wallet that routinely trades $5,000 positions in tokens with $200,000 in total liquidity, your $200 copy trade will execute cleanly. But if the wallet runs $50,000 positions and you attempt to mirror them in a token with thin order books, your execution diverges significantly from the original trade. You get a worse price, and your performance drifts away from the wallet you thought you were following.

When Copy Trading Fails

The failure modes are specific enough to be useful. Understanding them is the only way to build a copy trading approach that does not lose money in predictable, avoidable ways.

Latency is the first problem. If your copy trade lands 30 seconds after the original wallet buy, the token price has already moved. On high-volatility memecoins during active trading windows, a 30-second lag frequently represents a 5% to 15% price difference at entry. That gap does not have to be catastrophic on a single trade, but compounded across dozens of copies it consumes most of the theoretical edge. The platform you use and the chain you are operating on both determine how much latency you are working with.

Wallet selection is where most copy traders fail. Searching for wallets based on a single large win is the most common version of this mistake. The on-chain record is full of wallets that made 100x once, then lost consistently on the next eight trades. Copying that wallet means you pay the price for their reversion to the mean. Consistent PnL across multiple tokens, over multiple weeks, is the minimum bar. Anything below that is gambling on a streak continuing.

There is also the developer wallet problem. Some wallets that appear to be profitable traders are actually wallets controlled by the teams behind the tokens they buy. They accumulate early, their buys attract copiers, and they distribute into the copy trading volume. Identifying these requires cross-referencing wallet activity against holder cluster data and checking whether the wallet early entries into tokens align suspiciously with launch events for those same tokens.

The Speed Variable Most Traders Ignore

On-chain copy trading speed varies by platform, by chain, and by how the platform execution infrastructure is built. The differences are not small.

On Ethereum, block times average around 12 seconds. A copy trade that misses the target block by one slot is already 12 seconds behind. On Solana, block times run under 400 milliseconds, so the execution window is tighter but competition for block space is more intense. On Base, the Flashblock architecture creates a sub-second execution environment where copy trades can land at block-zero, meaning within the same block as the original trade.

Banana Pro delivers cross-chain copy trading across five blockchains, with three configuration tiers. The block-zero execution on Base via Flashblock runs at 200 milliseconds, which is currently the fastest publicly available copy trading execution window on that chain. On MegaETH, where block times drop to the millisecond range, the platform rebuilt routing engine operates at sub-100ms. The speed gap between a well-optimized platform and a slow one is not a minor inconvenience. On volatile tokens, it is the difference between a profitable entry and buying into price impact.

What Separates Profitable Copy Traders From Everyone Else

The traders who make money copy trading long-term share a set of habits that are less about finding magic wallets and more about systematic risk management.

Wallet research is where the work happens. This means using tools that surface top-PnL wallets with verifiable multi-token track records, then running those wallets through holder cluster analysis to confirm they are not developer wallets operating in disguise. Proxy wallet detection matters here: some sophisticated token teams operate networks of wallets designed to look like independent profitable traders to attract copy trading volume before a distribution event.

Risk parameters protect you from your own enthusiasm. A maximum spend per copy trade prevents any single copied position from becoming a portfolio-ending event. Market cap filters stop you from copying buys into tokens that are already fully distributed. Selective sell copying, where you mirror the wallet buys but apply your own take-profit and stop-loss levels, gives you control over your exit even when the copied wallet is willing to hold through a 70% drawdown. These settings are not optional extras. They are the mechanism that converts raw copy trading into a manageable strategy.

Chain diversification reduces concentration risk. Copying across multiple chains simultaneously means a single chain underperformance does not determine your overall results. It also exposes you to more wallet options: the top-performing wallets on Base are often different from the top-performing wallets on Solana or BNB Chain, and spreading across them gives you a larger sample to draw from.

What the Data Actually Concludes

Is copy trading profitable? The answer is yes, conditionally. The condition is not talent, and it is not luck. It is process: rigorous wallet selection based on consistent multi-token PnL rather than single-event performance, execution speed that is fast enough to get an entry price close to the original trade, and risk parameters that limit downside on any individual copied position.

The data from 25.3 million trades supports that conclusion. It also shows what happens when those conditions are not met. Wallets selected on the basis of one viral win, copy trades landing five to ten seconds behind the original on volatile tokens, and positions with no stop-loss protection produce losses that look predictable in retrospect. The strategy works. The discipline around wallet selection and execution quality is what separates the traders who make it work from the ones who conclude it does not.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is copy trading profitable in crypto?

Copy trading can be profitable when three conditions are met: the copied wallet has consistent PnL across multiple tokens over weeks, your execution speed is fast enough to get a comparable entry price, and your position sizing is appropriate for the liquidity of the tokens being traded. Without those conditions, most copy trades underperform or lose money.

What is the biggest risk in crypto copy trading?

Latency is the primary risk. On volatile tokens, a 30-second delay between the original trade and your copy trade can eliminate the entire edge of the position. The second major risk is wallet selection: copying a wallet that had one large win rather than consistent multi-token profitability over weeks.

How do I find good wallets to copy trade?

Look for wallets with positive PnL across at least five to ten different tokens over a minimum of three to four weeks. Cross-reference with holder cluster analysis tools to confirm the wallet is not a developer wallet or a proxy wallet designed to draw copiers into positions that get dumped on them.

Does execution speed matter in copy trading?

Yes, significantly. On chains with fast block times, the difference between a 200-millisecond copy trade and a 10-second copy trade can be the difference between a profitable entry and buying into price impact. On Base using Flashblock architecture, copy trades can execute at block-zero, which is the closest possible approximation to the original trade entry.

1...345...8,826Page 4 of 8,826

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy