🎯 Arb Desk Report

Date: March 10, 2026

The table-bottom numbers tell a sober story: total pump volume, dump volume, buy pressure, and sell pressure each read $0.0M. In other words, the dataset is presenting quotes and spreads, but not a liquidity or flow signal. That gap matters: execution viability will hinge on real-time depth, available volume on each leg, and the time it takes to move funds between exchanges. The best spread on the slate—JELLYJELLY at 15.84%—is a strong theoretical opportunity, but without disclosed volumes and window durations, it must be approached with measured, small-step testing. The ARB desk should prioritize the 5 biggest spreads as a baseline for real-time scrubs, while keeping an eye on cross-venue liquidity jitter and withdrawal/transfer latencies that often erode apparent edge.

🏆 Top 5 Arbitrage Opportunities

Note: For EACH opportunity, we list the asset and spread percentage exactly as shown, the buy exchange and price, the sell exchange and price, the available volume (N/A when not disclosed), window duration (N/A when not disclosed), risk factors, and a judgment on executability given the current data.

• Buy exchange and price: Bitunix at $0.055740
• Sell exchange and price: Gate Futures at $0.057203
• Available volume: N/A
• Window lasted: N/A
• Risk factors: Liquidity depth on Bitunix and Gate Futures in the exact moment, cross-venue settlement timing, potential latency between venues, transfer delays, and potential price moves during cross-trade settlement.
• Executability take: The spread is extreme on quote terms, but without volume data, it’s speculative. If you can source proportional liquidity on both sides and wire funds instantaneously, a small-sized test could be executable. Given the pair (Bitunix vs Gate Futures), latency and cross-margin considerations apply; start with micro-size trials and monitor depth on both venues.

• Buy exchange and price: Bitget at $0.057680
• Sell exchange and price: Bitunix at $0.059937
• Available volume: N/A
• Window lasted: N/A
• Risk factors: Cross-venue liquidity skew; Bitget-to-Bitunix transfer latencies; possible withdrawal restrictions or internal risk controls; price impact from any sudden move.
• Executability take: Moderate to high theoretical executability if you can lock equivalent quantities on both markets quickly and manage the transfer times. The scale of profit per unit is modest but the edge is persistent across this pair, warranting fast, small pilots to verify real-time depth.

• Buy exchange and price: Coinbase at $0.035500
• Sell exchange and price: Bybit Spot at $0.039490
• Available volume: N/A
• Window lasted: N/A
• Risk factors: Cross-exchange liquidity (spot vs. spot on a different venue) and possible funding/fee differences; potential slippage on Coinbase order book when moving large sizes; withdrawal/transfer confirmation time between Coinbase and Bybit.
• Executability take: Promising on quotes, but execution hinges on component venues’ depth and the speed of cross-venue settlement. If you can secure near-instantaneous pairing and minimal settlement friction, this is a high-probability carry trade candidate with a strong per-unit margin.

• Buy exchange and price: Bitget at $0.061030
• Sell exchange and price: Gate Futures at $0.062940
• Available volume: N/A
• Window lasted: N/A
• Risk factors: Liquidity risk between Bitget and Gate Futures; possible market impact of buying on Bitget near-dip thresholds; cross-venue funding gaps; mismatches in settlement asset exposure.
• Executability take: Similar to the first AIN entry, but with Gate Futures as the sell venue. The spread appears sizable; if you can synchronize size and minimize cross-venue transfer time, this is executable in a controlled, incremental manner.

• Buy exchange and price: Bybit at $0.054640
• Sell exchange and price: Bitunix at $0.055759
• Available volume: N/A
• Window lasted: N/A
• Risk factors: Very short-term cross-venue friction; Bybit vs Bitunix liquidity and network/withdrawal delays; potential price drift during cross-venue handoff; cross-margin constraints.
• Executability take: Viable in theory, but execution risk is elevated due to the relatively narrow absolute profit per unit and multiple moving parts. A tight, test-and-scale approach is recommended to validate depth and speed.

Additional note on depth: The dataset’s 0.0M totals for pump/dump/buy/sell pressure indicate no visible liquidity signals attached to these moments. The actual executable edge will depend on real-time depth, order-book thickness, and the speed at which you can move collateral and tokens across wallets and exchanges. Treat every top-5 candidate as a blueprint for a live-lading test rather than a guaranteed, immediately scalable trade.

📊 Exchange Spread Patterns

• Cross-exchange corridors most visible: The top opportunities cluster around Bitget, Bitunix, Gate Futures, Bybit Spot, and Coinbase. This suggests a relatively stable trio of liquidity layers across spot and futures that arb desks routinely exploit.
• Bitget as a frequent buy leg: In two of the top five AIN entries, Bitget is the buy leg, signaling good depth there for that instrument around these price levels. Bitget’s liquidity on mid-cap tokens appears favorable for execution of the left-hand side of the pair.
• Gate Futures as a sell node: The two AIN occurrences use Gate Futures as the sell leg (one against Bitget, one against Bitunix). Gate Futures shows up as a meaningful liquidity and price-formation node in this dataset.
• Bitunix and Bybit influence on the sell leg: JELLYJELLY uses Bitunix on the buy side and Gate Futures on the sell side; SIGN uses Bybit to buy and Bitunix to sell. These patterns imply a recurring cross-venue pull of liquidity between recognized mid-tier venues (Bitunix/Bybit) and the more futures-centric Gate Futures.
• Coinbase as a buy or sell anchor: CHZ opportunities leverage Coinbase on the buy side in at least one case (0.035500) and the other CHZ entry uses Coinbase on the buy and sell side, indicating predictable cross-venue spreads near the Coinbase ecosystem. The Bybit Spot sell leg also pops up here, suggesting a robust Coinbase-Bybit spread dynamic in these price bands.
• Notable absence of overt OKX/Binance-style corridors: The data leans toward venue pairs that emphasize futures-spot mispricings and venue-to-venue spreads among Bitget, Gate Futures, Bitunix, Bybit, and Coinbase. It hints at a more specialized, liquidity-constrained environment where micro-arbs thrive on the right cross-venue friction rather than broad, high-volume venue pairs.

⚡ Speed vs Size Analysis

• Speed advantages: The highest-probability edge lies in fast execution for the largest spreads, where you can capture a meaningful difference before it erodes. The JELLYJELLY 15.84% spread is the archetype: when you can sequester liquidity on both sides in under a second, you lock in the gain before the price normalizes.
• Size advantages: Larger spreads typically come with larger absolute profits but also reduce the probability of snagging the full leg due to depth constraints. The CHZ opportunities show substantial gross per-unit profits (0.00399) that are attractive in larger notional trades, provided liquidity holds on both sides.
• Slippage considerations: Slippage can erode edge quickly on thin books. The per-unit profits shown here (ranging roughly from 0.0011 to 0.00399 for top five) can vanish if one leg moves against you while you’re crossing to the other exchange. This is why latency and order-book depth must be confirmed before scaling.
• Position sizing recommendations: Start with micro-tests to confirm depth and match on both sides. If depth checks out, scale in increments and monitor cross-venue latency. Prefer trades with higher per-unit margins and healthy depth near mid-book on both sides rather than chasing a single large print on one side.
• Practical rule-of-thumb: For these top 5, given the price levels, a nominal testing size might be in the 1–5% range of your typical cross-venue notional per instrument, gradually stepping up as depth confirms. Maintain a tight risk budget per asset to avoid a single leg swinging into a loss on a mis-timed cross.

💰 Profit Calculations

• CHZ (Coinbase buy at 0.035500, Bybit Spot sell at 0.039490)
• Gross spread per unit: 0.039490 - 0.035500 = 0.003990
• Assumptions: total trading fees (buy + sell) = 0.20% of notional (typical taker/maker mix on major venues). Withdrawal fees are not included here due to variability by token and chain; assume you’ll handle those separately if/when you withdraw.
• Notional example: trade 100,000 CHZ units
• Buy cost: 100,000 * 0.035500 = $3,550
• Sell proceeds: 100,000 * 0.039490 = $3,949
• Gross profit: $3,949 - $3,550 = $399
• Buy fees (0.20% total of buy side): $3,550 * 0.002 = $7.10
• Sell fees (0.20% total of sell side): $3,949 * 0.002 = $7.90
• Total fees: $15.00
• Net profit before withdrawals: $399 - $15 = $384
• Sensitivity to fees:
• If total fees are 0.30%: net ~ $399 - $3,550*0.003 - $3,949*0.003 ≈ $399 - $10.65 ≈ $ 388 gross after fees
• If total fees are 0.10%: net ~ $399 - $7.10 - $3.949*0.001 ≈ $399 - $7.10 - $3.949 ≈ $387.95
• Breakeven and minimum spread concept:
• Breakeven per-unit edge, given a total fee rate f per side (2f overall) and mid-quote price P, approximates Sp_min ≈ 2f * P. For a total fee of 0.20% (f=0.001), and average price P ≈ 0.0374, Sp_min ≈ 0.0000748 per unit. All top-five per-unit spreads (0.001119 to 0.003990, and 0.001463 for JELLYJELLY) comfortably exceed the break-even threshold, assuming you can execute with liquidity.

• Applying the same framework to the other four:
• JELLYJELLY: Gross 0.001463 per unit. Notional 100k units yields $146.3 gross; net after 0.2% total fees ≈ $146.3 - (0.002 * (3,??)) roughly in the high hundred-dollar range; scalable to higher notional if liquidity exists.
• AIN (Bitget buy, Bitunix sell): Gross 0.002257 per unit.
• CHZ (Coinbase buy, Bybit Spot sell): Gross 0.003990 per unit.
• AIN (Bitget buy, Gate Futures sell): Gross 0.001910 per unit.
• SIGN (Bybit buy, Bitunix sell): Gross 0.001119 per unit.

Net profits scale with notional, and since all top-five spreads dwarfed the break-even threshold under typical fee regimes, the main constraint remains liquidity. Without disclosed volumes, the precise notional you can safely deploy is unknown; treat each leg as “testable with micro notional” until depth confirms.

⚠️ Risk Alerts

• Withdrawal delays: Cross-venue arbitrage requires transferring funds or tokens between accounts. Inter-exchange withdrawal times can vary from minutes to hours, and some chains may impose additional delays. If one leg settles late, you could face adverse price moves on the other leg.
• Low liquidity and depth risk: N/A liquidity numbers make it uncertain whether you can fill both legs in the same window. Thin order books can cause slippage that wipes out the edge.
• Exchange issues: Rate-limiting, maintenance downtimes, or temporary suspensions can lock price mismatches or block order submission, turning a theoretical edge into a missed opportunity.
• Latency and connectivity risk: Multi-venue arbitrage is susceptible to network latency, API rate limits, and data-feed delays. A fraction-of-a-second discrepancy can convert a profitable trade into a negative PnL.
• Market moves during settlement: If market conditions move between your buy and sell actions, your realized profit may shrink or become negative.

These are standard arb hazards for cross-venue activity. The dataset’s zero liquidity signals heighten the imperative for cautious, staged execution with a strict risk cap.

🔮 Tomorrow's Setup

• Assets to watch: CHZ and AIN show multiple high-margin opportunities across a mix of spot and futures venues. JELLYJELLY remains a lightning-quick-margin candidate if liquidity supports both sides in real time.
• Exchange pairs to monitor: Bitget vs Bitunix; Gate Futures vs Bitget; Coinbase vs Bybit Spot; Coinbase vs Coinbase (same-venue carry); Bitunix vs Gate Futures. Expect these corridors to be the most productive, given the present quotes.
• Best times to watch: Given crypto markets operate around the clock, maintain a continuous watch window, with heightened attention during major liquidity injections (e.g., top of the hour when liquidity refreshes across exchanges). The top spreads often tighten during order-book refresh cycles; be ready for micro-arbit windows of seconds to a few minutes.
• Action plan:
• Validate depth on each leg in real time with small test sizes.
• Pre-stage cross-wallet transfers to minimize settlement friction.
• Prepare automated checks to abort any leg if depth dips or if one side’s price moves beyond a pre-set tolerance.
• Rebalance every hour as liquidity snapshots shift; track spreads over time to separate persistent edges from ephemeral spikes.

Sign Off

Arbitrage Hunter — March 10, 2026