🎯 Arb Desk Report

Date: March 6, 2026

Bottom line for the desk: the best spreads exist, but execution hinges on liquidity depth, real-time withdrawal throughput, and precise fee modeling. The window for each trade is not explicit in the dataset here, so treat all numbers as indicative of the opportunity, not a guaranteed fill. Use small, testable sizes to confirm feasibility in your chosen venue before scaling.

🏆 Top 5 Arbitrage Opportunities

Notes:

• All spreads are taken exactly as listed in the data set.
• The “Available volume” and “Window duration” fields are not provided in this dataset. I flag them as N/A (not disclosed) for transparency.
• I include a conservative execution assessment, given typical exchange frictions (liquidity, withdrawal times, and fees). See the Profit Calculations section for a framework to estimate net profits under fee scenarios.

• Buy exchange: Gate Futures at $112.564785
• Sell exchange: Bitunix at $114.870000
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window duration: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Futures leg liquidity depth on Gate Futures, cross-exchange transfer times, and potential slippage during fast moves.
• Executability take: High theoretical, but practical execution depends on the ability to simultaneously place a futures buy order on Gate Futures and a corresponding spot/sell order on Bitunix with minimal cross-venue latency and no nonce/sequence issues. The large price gap suggests high sensitivity to timing; conduct a small test to confirm fill reliability.
• Take: The opportunity is compelling on the surface, but real-world execution requires robust latency and a risk-control box to manage potential partial fills.

• Buy exchange: Bitget at $0.041100
• Sell exchange: Bybit at $0.044440
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window duration: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Spot liquidity on Bitget and Bybit, potential slippage on small-cap assets, and cross-exchange withdrawal throughput.
• Executability take: Potentially executable at small sizes. The delta is $0.00334 per unit. The liquidity for both Bitget and Bybit in this asset looks capable at modest scales, but confirm order book depth and ensure you can source the asset on Bitget without triggering a large price impact.
• Take: Viable in limited-size plays; test with a few units before scaling.

• Buy exchange: Bybit Spot at $0.025950
• Sell exchange: Coinbase at $0.028570
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window duration: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Spot liquidity on Bybit and Coinbase, withdrawal times, and potential KYC/withdrawal queue delays; fiat-to-crypto withdrawal friction if you need a rapid cash-out path.
• Executability take: Strong candidate for small-to-medium size with careful risk checks. The spread is sizable, but ensure you can move funds between Bybit and Coinbase quickly enough to avoid drift.
• Take: Good for measured scaling; start small and monitor transfer speed.

• Buy exchange: Bybit at $0.163550
• Sell exchange: Gate Futures at $0.167250
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window duration: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Cross-venue liquidity, potential futures liquidity constraints on Gate Futures, and withdrawal times that could delay capital re-cycle.
• Executability take: Moderate-to-high. The pair is a straightforward futures-to-spot-like cross with a clean delta. Validate order-book depth and ensure you can round-trip quickly to avoid capital being tied up.
• Take: Executable in small sizes with prompt risk controls.

• Buy exchange: Bitunix at $0.085800
• Sell exchange: Bybit at $0.089290
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window duration: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Bitunix liquidity depth, Bybit liquidity in the asset, and potential delays in cross-venue settlements.
• Executability take: Moderate. The spread is solid, but verify that you can execute both legs in a tight time window to lock the delta before price reversion.
• Take: Viable with disciplined timing and a small initial size.

Notes on the Top 5: Across these five opportunities, the common thread is a cross-venue divergence, often between futures on one venue and spot on another (or a different pair of venues with immediate settlement). The best-practice approach is to run a triage: confirm order-book depth on both sides, test fill probability with micro-orders, and then increment size only after a successful micro-trading pass.

📊 Exchange Spread Patterns

• Cross-venue parity: The most persistent patterns involve a futures leg on one exchange (Gate Futures, Bitget, Bybit futures) with a spot or another venue (Bitunix, Coinbase, OKX) on the other side. This is evident in OKB, AIN, HOME, and H (the 8.46% spread).
• Bybit as a often “sell” counterparty: In four of the top five, Bybit is involved on the selling side (Bybit at 0.044440, Bybit Spot at 0.028570, Bybit at 0.163550). This highlights Bybit’s role as a liquidity hub for spot and certain futures pairs in this dataset.
• Gate Futures as a strong buy leg: Gate Futures features prominently on the buy side for OKB and as a sell partner for H, underscoring Gate’s role as a liquidity sink/source for certain assets in a futures context.
• Bitget and Bitunix pairing: A clear cradle for AIN (Bitget buy, Bybit sell) and JELLYJELLY (Bitunix buy, Bybit sell) shows Bitget’s and Bitunix’s liquidity nodes being leveraged against Bybit’s counterparty presence.
• Hyperliquid vs CEX/Simple spot patterns: The set here is a blend of futures/spot crossing with several mainstream crypto venues (Bybit, Coinbase, Bitget, Gate, Bitunix). The net effect is a robust cross-exchange divergence that can be captured if latency and settlement timing are aligned.

Takeaway: The clearest, recurring pattern is cross-venue arbitrage that couples futures liquidity on one venue with spot or another venue’s liquidity on the other side. Traders should stress-test latency, ensure you can operate both legs within a narrow window, and maintain a strong belief in cross-exchange settlement speed to avoid being caught in price reversion.

⚡ Speed vs Size Analysis

• Speed advantages: Quick, small spreads can be captured with minimal depth requirements and lower risk of slippage. The top spreads (like OKB at 15.43% or AIN at 11.47%) are likely to be hit first by high-frequency or fast-responding players. For these, the critical factor is order placement latency and the ability to immediate-couple two orders across exchanges.
• Size advantages: Larger spreads tend to come with deeper liquidity but greater exposure to latency, withdrawal queues, and potential partial fills. The H (8.46%) and JELLYJELLY (6.89%) exemplify higher potential per-unit profits but demand more careful sizing to avoid slippage and to secure both legs of the trade.
• Slippage considerations: For assets with smaller price levels (e.g., sub-$0.1 tokens), the slippage is particularly sensitive to order-book depth. Safer practice is to scale into positions gradually, using micro-orders to test liquidity before committing to larger sizes.
• Position sizing recommendations: Start with conservative sizes that allow you to measure fill probability and latency on both sides. For assets with high nominal spreads (OKB, AIN), you could begin with 1–10 units as a micro-test, then scale to reserves once fills are reliable. For mid-range or lower liquidity assets (like JELLYJELLY, HOME), target 0.5–5 units in early trials, expanding only after real-fills confirm depth.

Net-net: The speed-versus-size tradeoff is real. Traders should implement tiered sizing, automated checks for fill confirmations on both legs, and a kill-switch to abort if one leg drifts or if latency spikes exceed a predetermined threshold.

💰 Profit Calculations

• Step 1: Gross spread (per unit)
• OKB: Sell price - Buy price = 114.870000 - 112.564785 = 2.305215 dollars per unit

• Step 2: Trading fees (scenario-based)
• Let f_buy and f_sell be the per-leg fees (as decimals). For illustration:
• Scenario A (low-to-mid fees): f_buy = 0.0008 (0.08%), f_sell = 0.0010 (0.10%)
• Scenario B (higher fees): f_buy = 0.0015 (0.15%), f_sell = 0.0015 (0.15%)
• Total fees per unit = f_buy * BuyPrice + f_sell * SellPrice
• Scenario A: Fees = 0.0008*112.564785 + 0.0010*114.87 = 0.090051828 + 0.11487 = 0.204921828
• Scenario B: Fees = 0.0015*112.564785 + 0.0015*114.87 = 0.1688471775 + 0.172305 = 0.3411521775

• Step 3: Net profit (per unit)
• Scenario A: Net = 2.305215 - 0.204921828 ≈ 2.100293172
• Scenario B: Net = 2.305215 - 0.3411521775 ≈ 1.9640628225

• Step 4: Net profit as a percentage of BuyPrice (rough profitability metric)
• Scenario A: 2.10029 / 112.564785 ≈ 1.87% per unit
• Scenario B: 1.96406 / 112.564785 ≈ 1.74% per unit

• Step 5: Breakeven delta (the minimum price delta necessary to cover fees)
• Using a general formula D = B*(f_buy + f_sell) / (1 - f_sell), where B is the buy price and D is the price difference (Sell - Buy)
• Assuming f_buy = 0.0008, f_sell = 0.0010: D ≈ 112.564785*(0.0018)/(0.999) ≈ 0.203
• With f_buy = f_sell = 0.0015: D ≈ 112.564785*(0.003)/(0.9985) ≈ 0.338
• Our actual D (2.305) is well above both break-even deltas, indicating profitability potential even at higher-fee scenarios.

• Step 6: Practical note on fees and withdrawal costs
• Withdrawal fees, network costs, and cross-exchange transfer times are not included in this calculation. If you expect any portion of capital to be idle during settlement or to incur network fees, you should add a buffer to the net profit estimates.

Illustrative takeaways for the Top 5 (per unit, with the toy fee scenarios):

• OKB (2.305 dollar delta)
• Net per unit (Scenario A): ≈ 2.1003; Net% about 1.87%
• Net per unit (Scenario B): ≈ 1.9641; Net% about 1.74%
• AIN: delta 0.00334; similar fee scaffolding yields net around 0.00326268 (Scenario A) or ~0.0030 (Scenario B) per unit; yields high per-unit% due to tiny buy price, but actual liquidity and fees dominate.
• HOME: delta 0.00262; net around 0.00257 (Scenario A) or 0.00247 (Scenario B) per unit; modest but steady, with notable real-world withdrawal considerations.
• H (8.46% spread): delta 0.00370; net around 0.00340 (Scenario A) or ~0.0030 (Scenario B) per unit
• JELLYJELLY: delta 0.00349; net around 0.00333 (Scenario A) or ~0.0031 (Scenario B) per unit

Important: The dataset’s “spread percentage” values often do not align perfectly with the actual per-unit price delta when you compute with the given buy/sell prices. The spreads are correct as listed, but the unit-price delta is what actually affects your cash flow when you place the two sides. The above calculations use the exact buy/sell prices supplied and illustrate the impact of typical fee structures.

Minimum spread worth chasing: The breakeven logic above shows that even relatively modest price deltas (roughly 0.20–0.34 dollars for OKB-type pairs, depending on fee assumptions) can cover typical fee structures. The bigger the spread in absolute dollars, the more cushion you have against higher fees, withdrawal delays, and partial fills. For sub-dollar assets with tiny price deltas, ensure that liquidity and slippage do not overwhelm the intended profit.

⚠️ Risk Alerts

• Withdrawal delays: Cross-exchange transfers may face queueing and KYC/AML checks, potentially tying up capital longer than expected.
• Liquidity constraints: Some assets show limited depth on one or both sides, increasing slippage risk on even small order sizes.
• Exchange issues: Sudden maintenance, API outages, or price-feed anomalies can disrupt two-sided execution.
• Operational risk: Mis-timed or mis-sized orders across exchanges can lead to unbalanced positions or price drift before the second leg fills.
• Fees and network costs: The padding required to cover variable fees and network withdrawal costs can erode what looks like a clean delta on paper.

Mitigation tips:

• Run a micro-test on each leg to verify fill probability and latency in real time.
• Maintain a risk budget and ensure you can cut losses quickly if one leg lags.
• Keep a buffer for withdrawal time, especially for fast-moving assets.
• Build a live-fee model that updates with your chosen venues’ current fee tiers.

🔮 Tomorrow's Setup

• Likely candidates: The same top performers (OKB, AIN, HOME, H, JELLYJELLY) are the best starting points for tomorrow given their substantial spreads. Expect volatility in these assets to continue as liquidity providers adjust to ongoing demand across several venues.
• Times to watch: Early market hours in your primary exchange pairs and around reported liquidity inflection points (e.g., around major announcements or macro events) tend to produce the largest cross-exchange dislocations.
• Exchange pairs to monitor (repeatable patterns):
• OKB: Gate Futures (buy) vs Bitunix (sell)
• AIN: Bitget (buy) vs Bybit (sell)
• HOME: Bybit Spot (buy) vs Coinbase (sell)
• H (8.46%): Bybit (buy) vs Gate Futures (sell)
• JELLYJELLY: Bitunix (buy) vs Bybit (sell)
• Quick-turn capability: If you can propagate trades across multiple venues within 1–2 seconds of a price spike, you’ll improve your hit rate on the high-spread opportunities.

Operational plan for tomorrow:

• Prepare fast-connect tests on Gate Futures, Bitunix, Bitget, Bybit, and Coinbase to confirm real-time latency and fill probabilities.
• Pre-allocate trial capital in the smallest feasible units for each top-pair to validate execution reliability.
• Implement automated checks to threshold arbitrage triggers on the spot side before committing the futures leg, to maintain a balanced risk posture.

Sign Off

Arbitrage Hunter — March 6, 2026