ANTHILLAsk your own question
Answer · confidence: partial

Over a year, do robot trades beat just holding a big coin after fees?

Research question: Over a year, do automated crypto strategies still come out ahead of simply holding a major coin once trading fees and slippage are counted?

Some studies report automated strategies beating buy-and-hold after costs, such as a 2022 long-short LSTM/GRU ensemble with an out-of-sample Sharpe ratio of 3.23 against 1.33 for buy-and-hold 56. A 2026 review, however, says that reported outperformance depends on ignoring transaction costs and selecting the best models after the fact 8. A 2026 deep reinforcement learning study that applied 0.05% fees plus a 0.05% slippage penalty found its edge over the baseline significant only at the 10% level, with a p-value of about 0.06 1213. Older evidence suggests many technical rules survive typical costs, since 36.06% of CoinDesk oscillator rules and 47.35% of Ethereum channel breakout rules break even only above 50 basis points 23, while Bitcoin showed no out-of-sample predictability 4. The newest facts are dated 2026 with no month given, and the records do not directly test a full year of net-of-cost returns against holding a major coin 812.

Checked 2026-10-18. Only documented and supported facts are used.
Dig deeper on this question

Sources

[1] documented
The breakeven transaction costs for technical trading rules in cryptocurrencies are substantially higher than the transaction costs typically found in these markets.
"We find that the breakeven transaction costs are substantially higher than those typically found in cryptocurrency markets."
Technical trading and cryptocurrencies (2019)
[2] documented
A large proportion of technical trading rules generate breakeven transaction costs greater than 50 basis points, indicating that their performance is not wiped out by typical transaction costs.
"Nevertheless, a large proportion of technical trading rules do generate breakeven transaction costs greater than 50 basis points indicating that performance of technical trading rules in cryptocurrencies are not wiped out by appropriate transaction costs."
Technical trading and cryptocurrencies (2019)
[3] documented
Specifically, 36.06% of oscillator rules for CoinDesk and 47.35% of channel breakout rules for Ethereum generate breakeven transaction costs greater than 50 basis points.
"For instance, 36.06% of oscillator rules generate breakeven transaction costs greater than 50 basis points for CoinDesk while 47.35% of channel breakout rules generate rules with breakeven transaction costs greater than 50 basis points for Ethereum."
Technical trading and cryptocurrencies (2019)
[4] documented
There is no predictability for Bitcoin in the out-of-sample period, although predictability remains in other cryptocurrency markets.
"However there is no predictability for Bitcoin in the out-of-sample period, although predictability remains in other cryptocurrency markets."
Technical trading and cryptocurrencies (2019)
[5] documented
A long-short portfolio strategy based on LSTM and GRU ensemble models achieved an annualized out-of-sample Sharpe ratio of 3.23 after transaction costs.
"We find that a long-short portfolio strategy based on the predictions of the employed LSTM and GRU ensemble models yields an annualized out-of-sample Sharpe ratio after transaction costs of 3.23 and 3.12, respectively."
Machine learning for cryptocurrency market prediction and trading (2022)
[6] documented
The buy-and-hold benchmark strategy yielded a Sharpe ratio of 1.33, which is significantly lower than the automated strategies.
"In comparison, the buy-and-hold benchmark market portfolio strategy only yields a Sharpe ratio of 1.33."
Machine learning for cryptocurrency market prediction and trading (2022)
[7] documented
The automated trading strategies outperformed the buy-and-hold benchmark even after accounting for transaction costs.
"We find that a long-short portfolio strategy based on the predictions of the employed LSTM and GRU ensemble models yields an annualized out-of-sample Sharpe ratio after transaction costs of 3.23 and 3.12, respectively. In comparison, the buy-and-hold benchmark market portfolio strategy only yields a Sharpe ratio of 1.33."
Machine learning for cryptocurrency market prediction and trading (2022)
[8] documented
The reported outperformance of automated strategies over holding is conditional on ignoring transaction costs and selecting the best models after the fact.
"However, this outperformance is conditioned by ex post selection of the “best” models and neglect of transaction costs, and therefore it must be interpreted with caution as an illustration of the potential and limits of deep neural networks in short-term prediction of cryptocurrencies."
Application of artificial intelligence in cryptocurrency trading (2026)
[9] documented
A Halloween-based investment strategy outperforms both No-Halloween and Buy-and-Hold strategies for most major cryptocurrencies.
"The Halloween-based investment strategy outperforms both the No-Halloween and Buy-and-Hold strategies for most assets, suggesting that, depending on risk tolerance, investors may benefit from a Halloween-focused approach."
Profitability and risk in cryptocurrency markets: testing the Halloween effect and investment strategies (2025)
[10] documented
Cryptocurrencies generally exhibit higher returns during the Halloween period (October 31–April 30) compared to the rest of the year, although this comes with increased risk.
"The empirical evidence shows that cryptocurrencies exhibit higher returns during the Halloween period (October 31–April 30) compared to the rest of the year, although this period is associated with increased risk."
Profitability and risk in cryptocurrency markets: testing the Halloween effect and investment strategies (2025)
[11] documented
Most cryptocurrencies, with the exception of BTC, show outperformance during the Halloween period.
"Volatility analysis reveals significant differences between Halloween and non-Halloween periods, with most cryptocurrencies (except BTC) showing outperformance during Halloween."
Profitability and risk in cryptocurrency markets: testing the Halloween effect and investment strategies (2025)
[12] documented
The study models trading frictions by applying a baseline 0.05% transaction fee per execution and an additional 0.05% penalty to simulate execution slippage in volatile markets.
"By default, this study applies a 0.05% transaction fee per execution, aligning with the standard USDT taker fee rate for regular users on the Binance for USD-MFutures4. However,torigorouslytestthestrategy’sresilienceagainstunmodeledfrictions, the assumptions verification phase includes a 0.10% friction rate. This elevated rate serves as a composite proxy, encapsulating both the baseline 0.05% comm"
Dynamic Multi-Pair Trading Strategy in Cryptocurrency Markets with Deep Reinforcement Learning (2026)
[13] documented
The performance difference between the automated strategy and the baseline is statistically significant at the 10% level, with a p-value of approximately 0.06.
"As shown in Table 15, the differences in both Sharpe and Sortino ratios between Agent 2 and the Baseline are statistically significant at the 10% level (p-value ≈ 0.06)."
Dynamic Multi-Pair Trading Strategy in Cryptocurrency Markets with Deep Reinforcement Learning (2026)
[14] documented
The study assumes a transaction cost of 50 basis points for trading cryptocurrency factors, which is applied to assess the net performance of the strategies.
"i represents the proportionate transaction costs of trading US equities with 50 basis points, bonds and risk-free rates with 17 basis points, and cryptocurrency factors with 50 basis points (DeMiguel et al. 2009; Platanakis and Urquhart 2020)."
The diversification benefits of cryptocurrency factor portfolios: Are they there? (2024)
[15] documented
The aggregated market share of major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum declined from roughly 90% in January 2014 to 63% in June 2021.
"we observe that the aggregated market share of prevalent cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum dropped from roughly 90% in January 2014 to 63% in June 2021 (see, e.g., CoinM arket Cap)."
The diversification benefits of cryptocurrency factor portfolios: Are they there? (2024)
[16] documented
Volume-based cryptocurrency factors provide negligible diversification benefits compared to size and momentum factors.
"For instance, the volume-based factors offer negligible diversification benefits, indicating that the volume-related factors c"
The diversification benefits of cryptocurrency factor portfolios: Are they there? (2024)
[17] supported
The paper reports that a CUSUM-filtered sampling plus Triple Barrier labeling strategy outperformed time bars and next-bar prediction and stayed consistently positive after transaction costs.
"The results demonstrate that the innovative combination of CUSUM-filtered data with Triple Barrier labeling outperforms traditional time bars and next-bar prediction, achieving consistently positive trading performance even after accounting for transaction costs."
Algorithmic crypto trading using information-driven bars, triple barrier labeling and deep learning (2025)
[18] supported
An earlier ETH study found LSTM-based strategies could beat buy-and-hold, but it ignored transaction costs, which can significantly reduce gains in high-frequency trading.
"Their profitability analysis suggested that strategies based on LSTM model predictions could outperform the traditional buy-and-hold strategy. However, the analysis did not account for transaction costs, which can significantly diminish gains in high-frequency trading."
Algorithmic crypto trading using information-driven bars, triple barrier labeling and deep learning (2025)