Can AI Make Money in Crypto? Measuring the Gap from Backtests to Real Markets

Large language models (LLMs) and agentic systems are increasingly proposed for financial trading, yet their reported performance remains difficult to compare because studies vary in data provenance, temporal split discipline, execution timing, turnover treatment, and transaction-cost modeling. This article presents a targeted topical review and reproducibility audit of execution realism in LLM-based trading research. A coded evidence matrix covering 30 trade-relevant primary studies is used to assess point-in-time controls, split transparency, held-out evaluation, cost and turnover treatment, execution semantics, universe definition, and artifact release. Across the audited sample, architecture reporting is generally clearer than the evaluation assumptions needed to judge whether a trading result is economically interpretable or reproducible. A 10-equity worked example is included only as a methodological scaffold to illustrate how explicit friction and timing choices can materially compress active-strategy results. The main conclusion is that the next useful step for LLM trading research is not only better agent design, but also clearer reporting standards for execution realism, reproducibility, and evaluation comparability.

The intersection of crypto x AI is spawning papers, products, online posts, and companies. All the surrounding buzz, though, obscures what exactly has been done, what the opportunities and challenges are, and what open questions deserve attention. This survey paper asks what AI can do for blockchain-based technologies (broadly construed as "crypto") (crypto x AI), and vice versa (AI x crypto). We systematize existing work, summarize key takeaways, highlight open research questions, and offer a perspective on pervasive industry misconceptions, concluding that AI and crypto are still in the very early stages of meaningful integration.

Evaluating LLM coding agents in algorithmic trading is difficult because static benchmarks risk data contamination and numerical backtest outputs require ground truth from actual code execution. We present Backtrader-Bench, a framework with two complementary pipelines. A deterministic multiple-choice question (MCQ) pipeline generates questions from backtest configurations across five trading strategies, 33 templates, and three difficulty tiers, with an independent checker that re-derives every answer. A generator-solver filtering pipeline autonomously mines harder questions: a generator writes questions verified by executable code, converts them to MCQs, and discards any that a no-tool solver can answer without code execution. We evaluate 11 models without tools (10 runs each) and four with-tools configurations on a 30-question curated set. Tool-augmented agents reach 90.0% accuracy in a single pass (GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.7), outperforming the best no-tools baselines (73.0%, averaged over 10 runs) by 17 percentage points. On 38 separately mined questions, no-tools accuracy drops further, with half the models falling to roughly random-chance level (25%). Beyond evaluation, the scalable MCQ infrastructure is designed to produce a training corpus for reinforcement learning, with the ultimate goal of building a specialized agent for quantitative trading workflows.