How AI is assisting retail traders in capitalizing on prediction market ‘anomalies’ for profit.

An entirely automated bot discreetly seized micro-arbitrage opportunities in short-term cryptocurrency prediction markets, generating nearly $150,000

AI is assisting retail traders in taking advantage of prediction markets (Gabriele Malaspina, Unsplash)

Key points:

• The bot took advantage of brief instances when the combined value of “Yes” and “No” contracts fell below $1, securing approximately 1.5%–3% per transaction across 8,894 trades.
• Given that typical five-minute crypto prediction markets exhibit only $5,000–$15,000 per side in liquidity, larger firms would find it challenging to invest significant capital without affecting the spread.
• As AI systems increasingly arbitrate prediction markets against options and derivatives pricing, these platforms risk becoming reflections of broader crypto markets rather than independent sources of crowd-sourced probability.

An automated trading bot completed 8,894 trades on short-term crypto prediction contracts and is reported to have generated nearly $150,000 autonomously.

The approach, detailed in a recent post circulating on X, capitalized on brief instances where the total price of “Yes” and “No” contracts on five-minute bitcoin and ether markets fell below $1. Ideally, these two outcomes should always total $1. If they instead trade at a combined $0.97, a trader can purchase both sides and secure a three-cent profit when the market resolves.

STORY CONTINUES BELOWDon’t miss another story.Subscribe to the Crypto Daybook Americas Newsletter today. See all newslettersSign me upBy signing up, you will receive emails about CoinDesk products and you agree to our terms & conditions and privacy policy.

This results in approximately $16.80 in profit per trade — small enough to be undetectable in any single transaction, yet significant when aggregated. If the bot was utilizing around $1,000 per round-trip and achieving a 1.5-to-3% advantage each time, it creates a return profile that appears unremarkable on a per-trade basis but substantial overall. Machines prioritize consistency over excitement.

This may seem like easy profit. However, in reality, such discrepancies are typically brief, often lasting mere milliseconds. Yet this incident underscores a larger issue: crypto’s prediction markets are increasingly evolving into platforms for automated, algorithmic trading strategies, leading to an emerging AI-driven competitive landscape.

Currently, typical five-minute bitcoin prediction contracts on Polymarket show order-book depth of about $5,000 to $15,000 per side during active periods, according to data. This liquidity is significantly less than that of a BTC perpetual swap book on major exchanges like Binance or Bybit.

A trading desk attempting to deploy even $100,000 per transaction would exhaust the available liquidity and eliminate any edge present in the spread. For now, the advantage lies with traders who can comfortably operate in the low four figures.

When $1 isn’t $1

Prediction markets such as Polymarket enable users to trade contracts linked to real-world outcomes, ranging from election results to the price of bitcoin in the coming five minutes. Each contract typically concludes at either $1 (if the event occurs) or $0 (if it does not).

In an ideally efficient market, the price of “Yes” added to the price of “No” should equal exactly $1 at all times. If “Yes” is priced at 48 cents, “No” should be at 52 cents.

However, markets are seldom perfect. Low liquidity, rapidly changing prices of the underlying asset, and imbalances in the order book can lead to temporary discrepancies. Market makers may withdraw quotes during times of volatility, while retail traders may aggressively pursue one side of the book. For a brief moment, the combined price could dip below $1.

For a sufficiently quick system, that’s adequate.

Such micro-inefficiencies are not a new phenomenon. Similar short-term “up/down” contracts gained popularity on the BitMEX derivatives exchange in the late 2010s, before the venue eventually removed some after traders developed methods to consistently exploit small advantages. What has changed is the technology.

Initially, retail traders viewed these BitMEX contracts as directional bets. However, a small group of quantitative traders soon recognized that the contracts were systematically mispriced in relation to the options market — and began to extract value using automated strategies that the venue’s infrastructure was not designed to counter.

BitMEX ultimately delisted several of these products. The official reasoning was low demand, but traders at the time widely attributed this decision to the contracts becoming unprofitable for the house once the arbitrageurs entered.

Currently, much of this activity can be automated and increasingly refined by AI systems.

Beyond glitches: Extracting probability

The sub-$1 arbitrage represents the most straightforward example. More advanced strategies delve deeper, comparing prices across various markets to pinpoint inconsistencies.

Options markets, for example, effectively encapsulate traders’ collective expectations regarding future asset pricing. The prices of call and put options at different strike prices can be utilized to derive an implied probability distribution, offering a market-based estimate of the likelihood of various outcomes.

In simple terms, options markets function as large probability generators.

If options pricing indicates, for instance, a 62% likelihood that bitcoin will surpass a certain level within a short timeframe, but a prediction market contract associated with the same outcome suggests only a 55% probability, a discrepancy arises. One of the markets may be undervaluing risk.

Automated traders can track both markets concurrently, comparing implied probabilities and purchasing whichever side appears mispriced.

Such discrepancies are rarely significant. They might represent only a few percentage points, sometimes less. However, for algorithmic traders operating at high frequencies, minor advantages can accumulate over thousands of trades.

This process does not necessitate human intuition once established. Systems can continuously process price feeds, recalculate implied probabilities, and adjust positions in real-time.

Enter the AI agents

What sets today’s trading environment apart from previous crypto cycles is the increasing accessibility of AI tools.

Traders no longer need to manually code every rule or fine-tune parameters. Machine learning systems can be assigned the task of testing variations of strategies, optimizing thresholds, and adapting to changing volatility conditions. Some configurations involve multiple agents that monitor various markets, balance exposure, and automatically shut down if performance declines.

In theory, a trader could allocate $10,000 to an automated strategy, allowing AI-driven systems to scan exchanges, compare prediction market prices with derivatives data, and execute trades when statistical discrepancies exceed a predetermined threshold.

In practice, profitability is heavily influenced by market conditions and speed.

Once an inefficiency becomes widely recognized, competition escalates. More bots pursue the same advantage. Spreads narrow. Latency becomes crucial. Ultimately, the opportunity diminishes or vanishes.

The more significant question is not whether bots can profit from prediction markets. They evidently can, at least until competition reduces the edge. Rather, the focus is on the markets themselves.

If a growing proportion of volume is generated by systems that do not hold a perspective on the outcome — that are merely arbitraging between venues — prediction markets risk transforming into reflections of the derivatives market rather than independent indicators.

Why big firms aren’t swarming

If prediction markets hold exploitable inefficiencies, why are major trading firms not dominating them?

Liquidity is one factor. Many short-duration prediction contracts remain relatively shallow compared to large crypto derivatives venues. Attempting to deploy substantial capital can shift prices against the trader, diminishing potential profits via slippage.

Operational complexity is another issue. Prediction markets frequently operate on blockchain infrastructure, introducing transaction costs and settlement mechanisms that differ from those of centralized exchanges. For high-frequency strategies, even minor frictions are significant.

Consequently, some of the activity appears concentrated among smaller, agile traders who can deploy modest sizes, perhaps $10,000 per trade, without significantly impacting the market.

This dynamic may not persist. If liquidity increases and venues mature, larger firms could become more engaged. For the time being, prediction markets exist in a transitional state: sophisticated enough to attract quantitative strategies but thin enough to hinder large-scale deployment.

A structural shift

At their essence, prediction markets are designed to aggregate beliefs to generate crowd-sourced probabilities regarding future events.

However, as automation rises, an increasing share of trading volume may be driven less by human conviction and more by cross-market arbitrage and statistical models.

This does not inherently diminish their utility. Arbitrageurs can enhance pricing efficiency by closing gaps and aligning odds across different venues. Nonetheless, it alters the market’s character.

What begins as a venue for expressing opinions on an election or a price movement can transform into a battleground for latency and microstructural advantages.

In the crypto space, such transformations tend to occur swiftly. Inefficiencies are identified, exploited, and competed away. Advantages that once yielded consistent returns diminish as faster systems are developed.

The reported $150,000 profit from the bot may represent a clever utilization of a temporary pricing flaw. It may also indicate a more significant trend: prediction markets are evolving beyond mere digital betting platforms. They are becoming another frontier for algorithmic finance.

And in a landscape where milliseconds are crucial, the quickest machine typically prevails.