🎯 Arb Desk Report

Date: March 19, 2026

Two essential takeaways shape the day:

• The highest spread opportunities are concentrated around cross-exchange pairs that span OKX, Bitunix, Coinbase, Bybit, Bitget, Gate Futures, and Bitunix. These are not random quotes; they reflect persistent liquidity gaps across a handful of major venues. The best edge is a double-digit spread that survives fees and withdrawal costs.
• Liquidity and settlement speed are the limiting factors. While the price delta looks enormous in percentage terms, the real-world viability depends on how fast you can move funds and tokens between exchanges, and how you handle withdrawal and transfer times. The data snapshot shows zero “pump” or “dump” volumes in aggregate (Total pump/dump volume: $0.0M), which implies caution: these are spread opportunities at the moment, but not backed by large-on-chain burst liquidity in the dataset. Treat them as edge signals rather than guaranteed executions.

Below is the scene-set for the top five opportunities, followed by the patterns, speed/size tradeoffs, and risk framing you’ll need to navigate today’s landscape.

🏆 Top 5 Arbitrage Opportunities

For each entry, you’ll see the asset, the spread percentage as reported, the exact buy and sell quotes with exchanges, the stated “Available volume,” the window duration note, risk factors, and our verdict on executability given the current data.

• Buy exchange and price: OKX at $0.035200
• Sell exchange and price: Bitunix at $0.040874
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window lasted: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Cross-exchange settlement timing, liquidity depth on Bitunix for TRIA, quote latency, and potential withdrawal delays between OKX and Bitunix
• Executable? Likely executable on a favorable feed, but execution hinges on rapid cross-exchange fund/tokens movement. With a 16.12% quoted edge, the nominal risk is dominated by transfer latency and counterparty risk rather than price drift.
• Commentary: This is the cleanest, largest-percent edge in the set, but requires fast bridge mechanics. If you can stage the asset on both sides (or use pre-fund on the receiving exchange and a secure bridge API), you reduce the exposure. Consider parallel-provisioning or direct transfer tactics to minimize latency.

• Buy exchange and price: Bybit at $0.584300
• Sell exchange and price: Bybit at $0.623800
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window lasted: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Intra-exchange instrument spread; liquidity on Bybit for ETHFI across instrument variants; funding/position risk on perpetual vs spot; execution risk if the two legs are not perfectly synchronized
• Executable? This appears to be a same-exchange spread (Bybit) scenario, potentially between instrument types (e.g., spot vs perpetual). It can be executable if you can lock both legs or manage cross-instrument risk with low funding gaps; otherwise, price drift can erase the edge in seconds.
• Commentary: A good edge if you’re rostered for rapid cross-instrument arb within a single venue. Ensure you have the channels and risk controls to handle instrument-specific settlement times.

• Buy exchange and price: Bybit Spot at $0.614600
• Sell exchange and price: Coinbase at $0.632900
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window lasted: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Cross-exchange liquidity, withdrawal/transfer timing from Bybit Spot to Coinbase, possible slippage on Coinbase sell side, and counterparty risk exposure
• Executable? Potentially executable with prompt cross-exchange settlement; this is a classic spot-on-spot cross-exchange arb that benefits from the sizable 12.93% delta, but only if you can move the asset quickly between exchanges.
• Commentary: Solid edge with a familiar sink (Coinbase) and a reputable buy side (Bybit Spot). Verify withdrawal/minimums and bridge times to avoid a price reversion.

• Buy exchange and price: Bybit Spot at $0.601132
• Sell exchange and price: Coinbase at $0.670000
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window lasted: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Higher positive delta with increased settlement risk; token liquidity on Coinbase at the higher price; timing mismatch between Bybit and Coinbase
• Executable? High-lidelity arbitrage if you can line up the movement of the asset onto Coinbase before price gaps collapse. The steep delta suggests a meaningful payoff, but execution risk rises with time-to-settle between venues.
• Commentary: This is one of the better cross-exchange edges in the list, given Coinbase’s abundant liquidity on many tokens. Ensure you’re ready for the transfer mechanics and potential withdrawal queues.

• Buy exchange and price: Bitget at $0.745500
• Sell exchange and price: OKX at $0.772900
• Available volume: Not disclosed
• Window lasted: Not disclosed
• Risk factors: Transfer latency, Bitget vs OKX liquidity on the asset, and cross-exchange price movement during transfer
• Executable? The edge is meaningful, but viability depends on how quickly you can move the asset from Bitget to OKX and lock in the sell opportunity. If liquidity is tight on one side, or if the transfer lags, the spread can shrink.
• Commentary: A strong spread, especially when cross-exchange liquidity is favorable. Keep an eye on withdrawal flows and ensure you have a robust bridge plan to minimize downtime.

Notes across Top 5:

• All five entries rely on cross-exchange pricing, with the exception of ETHFI, which is a same-venue but cross-instrument opportunity (Bybit). The TRIA, BARD, and ETHFI opportunities span OKX, Bitunix, Coinbase, Bybit, Bitget, and Gate Futures. This aligns with a broader pattern: portable tokens and active assets move between major centralized exchanges, creating arbitrage irons that are sensitive to settlement timing.

📊 Exchange Spread Patterns

• OKX vs Bitunix: Present in TRIA; this pair recurs on other opportunities as the go-to buy side for high spreads, with Bitunix frequently serving as the sell venue. This coupling shows up as a core cross-venue delta where OKX supplies discounted buys and Bitunix, Coinbase, or OKX on the flip side offer higher sells.
• Bybit as buyer vs Coinbase/OKX/Bitget as seller: ETHFI and several BARD occurrences highlight Bybit often as the buy leg on spot or futures, with Coinbase or OKX as sellers. This pattern underscores the importance of Bybit’s liquidity on spot-like prices and the price visibility across other venues.
• Bitget and Gate Futures as buy legs with sell sides on OKX or Coinbase: The 10.71% (Bitget → OKX) and the Gate Futures → Bitunix example illustrate that newer or futures-oriented venues can yield meaningful spread corridors when paired with larger, more liquid retail/CEX venues on the sell side.
• Bybit vs OKX vs Coinbase/Bitunix: The 9.x% range opportunities reveal a broad triad of venues where the buy side often gravitates toward Bybit or OKX and the sell side targets Coinbase or Bitunix, sometimes OKX again. The overarching pattern: major venues (OKX, Coinbase, Bybit, Bitget, Bitunix) remain the primary battlegrounds for price divergence, with Gate Futures and other niche venues contributing occasional edge.
• Hyperliquid vs CEX: The dataset provided does not show explicit Hyperliquid cross-pairs; the spread activity is concentrated among established centralized exchanges. For practical positioning, expect the actionable arbitrage to ride between these CEXs rather than hyper-liquidity venues in this sample.

Key takeaway: The edges consistently emerge where a buy is on one major exchange and a sell on another major exchange, often with Bitunix, Coinbase, OKX, and Bybit playing central roles. The broader theme remains cross-exchange price polarity among a handful of major venues, plus select intra-exchange cross-instrument opportunities (ETHFI on Bybit).

⚡ Speed vs Size Analysis

• The speed edge is of paramount importance. When you have a 10–16% spread, you’ll still lose money if you’re slow to move funds and tokens between exchanges. Slippage, network latency, and withdrawal queues can erase or invert half of a multi-percentage-point spread in seconds. This pushes traders toward:
• Speed-oriented execution: pre-funding on one side to minimize bridge time, or using “on-exchange” or “same-venue” cross-instrument arb where possible.
• Robust connectivity: low-latency data feeds and co-located infrastructure to reduce the lag between quote update and order fill.
• Liquidity-aware sizing: if you’re chasing 8–16% spreads, you’ll want to size up to capture meaningful profit but avoid hitting thin-book slippage on the redemption leg. That means balancing notional size with the available liquidity on the receiving exchange.
• Size considerations: larger notional units scale gross profit roughly linearly but scale risk nonlinearly due to liquidity depth and withdrawal friction. The 5 top opportunities offer large per-unit profits, but the actual daily take depends on available liquidity on the higher-priced sell venue and the speed with which you can move the asset to settle the trade.
• Practical guidance for position sizing:
• Start with a conservative notional that you can fully settle within the typical withdrawal/transfer window of the asset and the exchanges involved.
• Use tiered deployment: test with smaller lots to verify transfer times and counterparty response, then scale up if settlement is reliably fast.
• Maintain a buffer for price reversion: when funds are in transit, the price can drift; ensure your hedge or risk controls accommodate partial fill and partial settlement.

Net-net: The best practice is to optimize for speed first, size second, and always verify liquidity and withdrawal times on each leg before committing to a large notional. The top spreads tempt the brain, but the real edge is efficient capital deployment across the bridge.

💰 Profit Calculations

• Gross spread (per 1,000 units): 0.040874 − 0.035200 = 0.005674 per unit; total gross profit = 0.005674 × 1,000 = 5.674
• Trading fees (assume 0.10% taker on each leg; i.e., 0.001 of trade value per leg):
• Buy fee on 1,000 units: 0.001 × (0.035200 × 1,000) = 0.0352
• Sell fee on 1,000 units: 0.001 × (0.040874 × 1,000) = 0.040874
• Total fees = 0.0352 + 0.040874 = 0.076074
• Withdrawal fees: Not specified in the data. For the baseline, we set withdrawal fees to zero to illustrate the pure fee impact; in practice, you’ll incur a withdrawal fee per asset on moving funds between exchanges. To keep the math consistent, you can model withdrawal fees as an additional per-unit cost w_per_unit and add it to the net calculation below.
• Net profit (baseline, no withdrawal fees): 5.674 − 0.076074 = 5.597926
• Net profit per unit (baseline): 5.597926 / 1,000 ≈ 0.005598 per unit
• Net margin (baseline) relative to buy value: 0.005598 / 0.035200 ≈ 15.89%

Now apply the same framework to the other four top opportunities (using the exact prices provided):

• Spread per unit: 0.623800 − 0.584300 = 0.039500
• 1,000 units gross: 39.500
• Buy value: 584.300; Sell value: 623.800
• Buy fee: 0.001 × 584.300 = 0.5843
• Sell fee: 0.001 × 623.800 = 0.6238
• Total fees: 1.2081
• Net profit: 39.500 − 1.2081 = 38.2919
• Net per unit: 0.0382919
• Net margin: 0.0382919 / 0.5843 ≈ 6.55%

• Spread per unit: 0.632900 − 0.614600 = 0.018300
• 1,000 units gross: 18.300
• Buy value: 614.600; Sell value: 632.900
• Buy fee: 0.001 × 614.600 = 0.6146
• Sell fee: 0.001 × 632.900 = 0.6329
• Total fees: 1.2475
• Net profit: 18.300 − 1.2475 = 17.0525
• Net per unit: 0.0170525
• Net margin: 0.0170525 / 0.6146 ≈ 2.77%

• Spread per unit: 0.670000 − 0.601132 = 0.068868
• 1,000 units gross: 68.868
• Buy value: 601.132; Sell value: 670.000
• Buy fee: 0.001 × 601.132 = 0.601132
• Sell fee: 0.001 × 670.000 = 0.6700
• Total fees: 1.271132
• Net profit: 68.868 − 1.271132 = 67.596868
• Net per unit: 0.067596868
• Net margin: 0.067596868 / 0.601132 ≈ 11.25%

• Spread per unit: 0.772900 − 0.745500 = 0.027400
• 1,000 units gross: 27.400
• Buy value: 745.500; Sell value: 772.900
• Buy fee: 0.001 × 745.500 = 0.7455
• Sell fee: 0.001 × 772.900 = 0.7729
• Total fees: 1.5184
• Net profit: 27.400 − 1.5184 = 25.8816
• Net per unit: 0.0258816
• Net margin: 0.0258816 / 0.7455 ≈ 3.47%

Bottom line on profits:

• Even after a baseline 0.10% taker fee on each leg (total 0.20% realized fee on the round trip), net margins for the top five opportunities range roughly from ~2.8% up to ~15.9% per unit, with higher nominal spreads not always translating into higher net margins due to the relative price levels and the proportionate fees on each leg.
• If withdrawal costs are nonzero, you should add those costs as w in net calculations. For example, a hypothetical withdrawal cost equivalent to an additional 0.2% of notional on the moving leg would push some of these break-even thresholds higher, but the top five spreads are still well above typical break-even bars (which, with f ≈ 0.001 per leg and no withdrawal, sit near ~0.20% for the break-even margin).

Minimum spread worth chasing (baseline):

• With standard taker fees of 0.10% per leg and no withdrawal costs, the theoretical break-even spread is about 0.20% (calculated via the two-legged-fee model). In practice, when you include withdrawal costs and potential bridge slippage, the meaningful minimum edge might be closer to 0.25%–0.50% depending on the asset, network fees, and the exchange pair.
• The top five opportunities here are well above that threshold on the quoted quotes, which implies that, in a fast, well-funded workflow, the arbitrage edge could be actionable.

⚠️ Risk Alerts

• Withdrawal delays: inter-exchange transfers can create settlement lag. If the asset has nontrivial withdrawal times, the price delta can collapse before you can complete the second leg.
• Liquidity gaps: while the quoted spreads are large, the actual tradable volume at those exact prices can be thinner than the headline. A sudden price move or a mismatch in liquidity depth on one side can squeeze profits.
• Exchange issues: counterparty risk, temporary suspension of withdrawals or trading, or API outages can disrupt the arb lifecycle.
• Quote reliability: price feeds and time stamps matter. Ensure your data source timing aligns across exchanges to avoid chasing stale quotes.
• Cross-instrument risk (ETHFI on Bybit): intra-exchange complexities (spot vs futures) can introduce funding rates, funding gaps, or instrument-specific settlement quirks that erode the edge if not managed carefully.

🔮 Tomorrow's Setup

• Look for continued cross-exchange gaps among OKX, Bitunix, Coinbase, Bybit, Bitget, Gate Futures, and OKX’s spot vs futures suite. The strongest edges are likely to persist where the buy leg sits on OKX or Bitget and the sell leg lands on Coinbase, Bitunix, or OKX in a contrasting instrument type.
• Attend to stable patterns: TRIA (OKX buy, Bitunix sell) and BARD (Bybit Spot buys with Coinbase or OKX sell) look particularly robust in the dataset. ETHFI’s Bybit-centric spread (buy and sell on Bybit) also warrants attention if intra-exchange liquidity remains favorable.
• Optimal watching windows: since the data does not specify window durations, expect these opportunities to be ephemeral. Monitor during periods of market stress or volatility shifts when cross-venue mispricings are likelier to widen.
• Suggested monitoring pairs to keep on your radar:
• OKX ↔ Bitunix (TRIA and similar edge tokens)
• Bybit Spot/BYBIT ↔ Coinbase (BARD family)
• Bitget ↔ OKX (second-tier cross)
• Gate Futures ↔ Bitunix (smaller but persistent cross)
• Coinbase ↔ Bybit (mixed-venue attractors)

Sign Off

Arbitrage Hunter — March 19, 2026