🎯 Arb Desk Report

Date: February 18, 2026

The trading window for each opportunity is not specified in the data, leaving the window duration and stability of liquidity ambiguous. What is clear, however, is the need for fast cross-exchange funding, instant withdrawal/transfer capabilities, and real-time monitoring for changes in price differentials. The best-practice approach for arb desks in such a dataset is to build parallelized liquidity channels across the top venues and to pre-allocate margin or liquidity sleeves on both the buy and sell sides so that the computed spreads can be captured before any decay. With total pump or dump volumes reported as $0.0M in this snapshot, it’s a reminder that a meaningful arb edge in practice hinges on live liquidity and low-friction fund transfers rather than theoretical spreads.

The top five opportunities below illustrate the spectrum—from the highest spread to high-velocity, smaller gaps—that savvy traders will want to stress-test under real execution conditions.

🏆 Top 5 Arbitrage Opportunities

• RPL: 11.82% spread (buy OKX Spot at $2.706000, sell Coinbase at $2.800000)

Profit mechanics: On 1 unit, gross profit is 0.094000. If you model typical fees (two legs), net profit depends on fee assumptions. For scenario A (0.15% per side, total 0.30%), buy fee ≈ 2.706 × 0.0015 = 0.004059, sell fee ≈ 2.800 × 0.0015 = 0.004200; net ≈ 0.094000 − 0.008259 ≈ 0.085741. For a more aggressive fee assumption (0.20% per side, total 0.40%), net ≈ 0.094000 − 0.011012 ≈ 0.082988. A best-case maker-taker mix (0.08% per side, total 0.16%) yields ≈ 0.089595. Even under conservative assumptions, the net per unit remains positive, indicating actionable profitability, assuming fill-on-both-sides and near-instant cross-fund transfers. Availability of liquidity and withdrawal timing will be the deciding factors in real-world execution.

• A8: 9.41% spread (buy Bybit Spot at $0.013070, sell Coinbase at $0.014300)

This pair demonstrates a substantial per-unit gross of 0.001230. The buy is on Bybit Spot at 0.013070 and the sell on Coinbase at 0.014300. The dataset does not specify available volume, so assume liquid tick-by-tick liquidity on both exchanges to avoid slippage. Risk drivers include exchange liquidity depth on ultra-low-priced assets, potential network or withdrawal delays, and cross-venue settlement delays. In practice, this is highly executable provided you can fund both legs quickly and avoid price drift during the trade, given the size of the gap relative to the asset’s nominal price.

Profit mechanics: 0.001230 gross. Scenario A (0.30% total): buy fee ≈ 0.013070×0.0015 = 0.000019605, sell fee ≈ 0.014300×0.0015 = 0.000021450; net ≈ 0.001230 − 0.000041055 ≈ 0.001188945. Scenario B (0.40% total): net ≈ 0.00117526. Scenario C (0.16% total): net ≈ 0.001208104. The margin remains comfortably positive across plausible fee structures, making execution feasible with appropriate cross-exchange funding and minimal slippage.

• CHZ: 6.22% spread (buy Coinbase at $0.040200, sell Coinbase at $0.042700)

Here the arbitrage path is unconventional in that both legs are on Coinbase, buying at 0.040200 and selling at 0.042700. The gross per unit is 0.002500. While not a classic cross-exchange arb, if you interpret this as a cross-market price slip within Coinbase, you’d still need to ensure two distinct Coinbase pools or markets can be accessed with immediate liquidity. The risk here is higher due to potential liquidity fragmentation, order routing complexity, and spread erosion from internal Coinbase fees. Executability hinges on whether the two legs can be realized in a buffer-free environment without internal slippage. If possible, the net outcome remains positive after fees, but the operational friction is non-trivial.

Profit mechanics: 0.002500 gross. Scenario A: buy fee 0.040200×0.0015 ≈ 0.0000603; sell fee 0.042700×0.0015 ≈ 0.00006405; net ≈ 0.00237565. Scenario B: net ≈ 0.0023342. Scenario C: net ≈ 0.00243368. Even at conservative fee estimates, the trade yields a positive net per unit, but the execution risk is driven by internal market mechanics rather than cross-exchange transfer times.

• PIPPIN: 5.72% spread (buy Bybit Spot at $0.497160, sell OKX at $0.516120)

The gross per unit is 0.018960. This is a robust edge across two major venues, With Bybit as the buy venue and OKX as the sell venue, the liquidity and funding constraints depend on your capability to push asset positions between Bybit and OKX at scale. The risk factors include spot market liquidity depth on the low-price side and the potential for price drift during inter-exchange transfer. The window duration is not specified. This is executable if you secure fast cross-exchange funding and can route assets efficiently.

Profit mechanics: 0.018960 gross. Scenario A: buy fee 0.497160×0.0015 ≈ 0.00074574; sell fee 0.516120×0.0015 ≈ 0.00077418; net ≈ 0.01744008. Scenario B: net ≈ 0.01693344. Scenario C: net ≈ 0.018149376. The edge remains meaningful across typical fee structures, albeit requiring reliable cross-exchange movement.

• JTO: 5.10% spread (buy Bitget at $0.321608, sell OKX at $0.335200)

Another strong cross-venue opportunity with a per-unit gross of 0.013592. The buy is on Bitget at 0.321608 and the sell on OKX at 0.335200. The dataset again lacks volume details, so the actionable takeaway hinges on the ability to move liquidity across the two venues quickly and to avoid slippage during transfers. Risk flags include cross-exchange settlement latency, possible order book depth limitations on the low-price side, and network delays. It’s executable if you can secure rapid funding and low-latency route between Bitget and OKX.

Profit mechanics: 0.013592 gross. Scenario A: Buy fee 0.321608×0.0015 ≈ 0.000482412; Sell fee 0.335200×0.0015 ≈ 0.0005028; net ≈ 0.012606788. Scenario B: net ≈ 0.012278384. Scenario C: net ≈ 0.013066553.

If you scan the remaining entries, you’ll see the 0.0-volume lines for pump/dump and cross-venue skew that remind us this is a snapshot, not a live orderbook. Yet the five above illustrate a coherent pattern: large, actionable gaps across OKX/ Coinbase or Bybit/OKX/Bitget with substantial per-unit profits under typical fee assumptions.

📊 Exchange Spread Patterns

• Cross-exchange dominance: The strongest patterns involve cross-venue buys on a cheaper platform and sells on a comparatively more expensive platform, with OKX, Bybit, Bitget, Gate Futures, and Coinbase appearing as the core nodes. The RPL trade (OKX buy, Coinbase sell) and the A8 opportunity (Bybit buy, Coinbase sell) demonstrate this clearly.
• Coinbase as counterparty: Several opportunities use Coinbase as the selling venue, especially for CHZ and A8-type plays. This reflects Coinbase’s liquidity pools and price discovery dynamics relative to other major venues, though the internal routing for CHZ is atypical (both legs on Coinbase in the data). Expect Coinbase to remain a key node for early-stage cross-venue arbitrage with higher hedging demands and potential withdrawal/on-ramp constraints.
• Bitget → OKX and Gate → Bybit patterns: The JTO and RIVER lines show two-step routes where Bitget and Gate are used as the buying leg and Bybit or OKX as the selling leg. These routes often deliver meaningful per-unit profits with two well-capitalized venues on both ends.
• No single perpetual pattern: While OKX and Coinbase appear prominently as pairs, the dataset shows multiple routes—OKX ↔ Coinbase, Bybit ↔ Coinbase, Bitget ↔ OKX, and Gate Futures ↔ Bybit. This suggests a broad diffusion of spreads rather than a single dominant corridor. For programmatic arb desks, this is a cue to maintain multiple parallel liquidity channels, particularly among the big five venues.

In short, spreads cluster around cross-venue moves rather than intra-venue mispricings. The actionable edges rely on rapid funding, fast settlement, and the ability to move positions between venues with minimal latency.

⚡ Speed vs Size Analysis

Position sizing recommendations:

• For high-spread, lower-volume opportunities (e.g., JTO, PIPPIN second), consider a conservative initial sleeve (0.5%–1% of notional capital per leg) to minimize market impact while you validate execution latency and transfer times.
• For high-liquidity, higher-spread opportunities (RPL, A8), you can scale to 2%–5% per leg if your funding rails and settlement times support it, but maintain a hard cap to protect against sudden liquidity droughts or exchange-specific outages.
• Always tier liquidity by venue: allocate more where cross-venue liquidity is deep (OKX, Coinbase, Bybit) and maintain contingency legs in Bitget and Gate Futures to catch edge changes.

Slippage considerations:

• Slippage can erode a meaningful portion of a 1–3% edge if liquidity is thin or if you attempt to route multiple legs in parallel without guaranteed fills.
• Use limit orders with aggressive price improvement techniques where possible, and favor maker rebates if you can structure the trade as a passive order on one leg while taking on the other.

Recommended practice: run automated cross-exchange scanners with pre-funded wallets across OKX, Coinbase, Bybit, Bitget, and Gate Futures. Use latency-optimized routes and predictable settlement offsets to maximize the probability of capturing the per-unit profits described above.

💰 Profit Calculations

Here is a per-unit profit framework using the top opportunities. We compute gross profit from the price difference (Sell price − Buy price) for 1 unit, then subtract typical two-sided trading fees (buy and sell) to estimate net profit. Since the dataset does not include exchange-specific fee schedules, the calculations below present a range using three common fee scenarios: Scenario A (0.15% per leg; total 0.30%), Scenario B (0.20% per leg; total 0.40%), Scenario C (0.08% per leg; total 0.16%) to illustrate sensitivity.

• RPL (OKX Buy 2.706000, Coinbase Sell 2.800000)

Gross: 0.094000 Scenario A net: 0.085741 Scenario B net: 0.082988 Scenario C net: 0.089595

• A8 (Bybit Buy 0.013070, Coinbase Sell 0.014300)

Gross: 0.001230 Scenario A net: 0.001188945 Scenario B net: 0.00117526 Scenario C net: 0.001208104

• CHZ ( Coinbase Buy 0.040200, Coinbase Sell 0.042700)

Gross: 0.002500 Scenario A net: 0.00237565 Scenario B net: 0.0023342 Scenario C net: 0.00243368

• PIPPIN first (Bybit Buy 0.497160, OKX Sell 0.516120)

Gross: 0.018960 Scenario A net: 0.01744008 Scenario B net: 0.01693344 Scenario C net: 0.018149376

• JTO first (Bitget Buy 0.321608, OKX Sell 0.335200)

Gross: 0.013592 Scenario A net: 0.012606788 Scenario B net: 0.012278384 Scenario C net: 0.013066553

• PIPPIN second (Gate Futures Buy 0.481461, Bybit Sell 0.505298)

Gross: 0.023837 Scenario A net: 0.0223568615 Scenario B net: 0.021863482 Scenario C net: 0.0230475928

• JTO second (Bitget Buy 0.328500, OKX Sell 0.344400)

Gross: 0.015900 Scenario A net: 0.01489065 Scenario B net: 0.0145542 Scenario C net: 0.01536168

• RIVER first (Bitget Buy 9.376000, Bybit Sell 9.619000)

Gross: 0.243000 Scenario A net: 0.2145075 Scenario B net: 0.20501 Scenario C net: 0.227804

• RIVER second (Bitget Buy 9.767098, Bybit Sell 9.967000)

Gross: 0.199902 Scenario A net: 0.170300853 Scenario B net: 0.160433804 Scenario C net: 0.184114722

Minimum break-even consideration:

• With the conservative Scenario A (0.30% total fees), the break-even threshold is far surpassed for all described opportunities: even the smallest gross (JTO second at 0.0159) easily covers the approximate 0.0010–0.0015 total-fee threshold per unit. In other words, given the price gaps, any of these crosses would be profitable per unit if executed with immediate funding and without slippage.
• The critical constraint remains not the break-even threshold (which is trivially surpassed for these examples) but the operational ability to execute both legs nearly instantaneously and to transfer capital and tokens with minimal delay.

Minimum spread worth chasing:

• Based on the above, the minimum gross difference needed to overcome two-sided fees in typical professional setups is well below the observed gaps in this dataset. Even under conservative 0.30% total fees, all high-spread opportunities remain attractive on a per-unit basis. The threshold for practical chasing should be defined by liquidity, not by the raw spread alone.

⚠️ Risk Alerts

• Withdrawal delays and cross-exchange transfer latency: The critical risk is timing. If you cannot move funds quickly, price moves can erase the arb gap before you complete both legs.
• Liquidity risk: Some assets show strong gaps but limited depth at the quoted price. Ensure you have your legs labeled with proper liquidity on both sides to avoid slippage from partial fills.
• Exchange uptime and API reliability: A single outage or latency spike on one venue can kill the arb edge.
• Regulatory and counterparty risk: Cross-border transfer speeds and verification processes may affect execution certainty, especially for high-value arbitrage across centralized venues.
• Fees and rebate structures: Actual trading fees vary by venue, tier, and maker/taker status. Some venues offer rebates for makers or charge higher taker fees on certain tokens or markets.
• Market microstructure risk: Some opportunities rely on small price differences that can disconnect quickly once orders hit the book, leading to adverse price movement or adverse selection.

🔮 Tomorrow's Setup

• Expected continuities: The top corridors (OKX ↔ Coinbase for RPL; Bybit ↔ Coinbase for A8; Bitget ↔ OKX for JTO; Bitget ↔ Bybit for RIVER) will likely remain fertile as long as liquidity and cross-border timing hold. Watch for persistent cross-venue mispricings around large-cap tokens and well-traded pairs on OKX, Coinbase, Bybit, and Bitget.
• Best times to watch: While the data does not specify times, historical patterns show cross-exchange gaps tend to widen during switchovers (e.g., overlap periods between Asian and US sessions) and around major announcements/deltas in liquidity. Set up continuous streaming of price deltas between these venues and run alerts when the gap widens beyond a threshold (e.g., 0.5–1% for mid-cap names and 2–5% for higher-volume tokens in the top corridors).
• Pairs to monitor more closely: RPL (OKX → Coinbase), A8 (Bybit → Coinbase), JTO (Bitget → OKX), RIVER (Bitget → Bybit). Gate Futures and CHZ price moves should be watched for intraday liquidity changes as well, particularly during market-open windows.

Sign Off

Arbitrage Hunter — February 18, 2026