ShizukaKazu

#Gate广场AI测评官 Using OpenClaw for quantitative trading, can it really make money?
Recently, a very popular name has emerged in the quant and crypto circles: OpenClaw. Many people call it the "AI Lobster Trader," and you often see promotions in communities like: "Turn $50 into $3,000 in two days," "Automated quant makes thousands of dollars in a day," "AI finds strategies and places orders automatically." It sounds like an automatic money-printing machine.
But the question is: how effective is OpenClaw for running quantitative trading in reality?
Today, we will clarify this from three perspectives: technology, actual results, and risks.
1. What exactly is OpenClaw?
First, the conclusion: OpenClaw is not a trading system per se. It is an AI Agent framework.
OpenClaw is an open-source platform for automated intelligent agents that can perform tasks using large models, such as:
- Automatically collecting data, analyzing information, calling APIs, executing scripts, triggering trading actions.
It was first launched by developer Peter Steinberger in 2025 and quickly became popular in the developer community. Simply put: OpenClaw = AI execution system, not = profit-making strategy. Many people confuse these two things.
2. Why is OpenClaw used for quant trading?
The reason is quite simple. Traditional quantitative trading has three parts:
1. Data
2. Strategy
3. Execution
OpenClaw excels at automation of execution. For example, it can: automatically fetch market data, run backtests, optimize parameters, monitor markets, place orders automatically, and even turn the entire process into a pipeline: idea → backtest → simulation → live trading. Some projects even promote: AI can automatically discover strategies and optimize parameters. So many start fantasizing: "AI trades for me, I just collect the profits." But reality is usually not that simple.
3. Actual results: it can run, but not necessarily make money
If you look at real user feedback, you'll notice an interesting phenomenon. OpenClaw can indeed run trades, but the returns vary greatly. Some say: an average monthly return of about 5%. Others suffer losses directly. The reason is simple: it’s not the AI that makes money, but the strategy.
The core of quant trading always boils down to three things: strategy logic, risk control, and market understanding. AI is actually unstable in these areas. If the strategy itself is poor, no matter how intelligent the automation system, it’s useless.
4. What is the true value of OpenClaw?
If you ask professional quant traders, most will give a more rational answer: the most valuable aspect of OpenClaw is its automation engineering capability. For example:
1. Automated research: AI can scan markets daily, analyze news, and detect abnormal volatility.
2. Automated backtesting: strategies can be automatically tested against historical data. Automated monitoring: when the market shows anomalies—volatility, drawdowns, price breakthroughs—the system automatically alerts.
Many engineers believe that the best use of OpenClaw is for research + monitoring + semi-automatic trading, rather than fully automatic order placement.
5. The real conclusion: if you only ask, "How effective is OpenClaw at running quantitative trading?" the answer is simple. It is not a money-making machine. It is more like an automated operation system for quant trading. If you have mature strategies, comprehensive risk controls, and technical skills, it can improve efficiency. But if you just want to "set up AI to automatically make money," the most likely result is: paying tuition fees.
There’s an old saying in the quant industry: automation doesn’t turn bad strategies into good ones. OpenClaw just automates trading. But what truly determines your profitability is never AI, but: your trading logic.

#Clarity法案最新草案 Wall Street's Guillotine: When the "Yield Frenzy" of Dollar Stablecoins Gets Reset to Zero by Politicians!
On Wall Street on March 24, 2026, the air was thick with the stench of blood. Just yesterday, those Web3 elites still clinking wine glasses in Manhattan penthouses celebrating cryptocurrency's compliance breakthrough were kicked off the terrace by a draft proposal flying in from Washington.
Circle (ticker: CRCL), the flagship "absolutely compliant" dollar stablecoin issuer, experienced an epic collapse upon opening on the U.S. stock market without warning, with its stock price plummeting 19% like a kite with a severed string, not only brutally breaching the 21-day moving average support level but also marking the most devastating single-day decline in the company's history.
In the face of this avalanche, no one could stand aside. As Circle's closest ally and primary distribution channel, crypto's first publicly-traded stock Cb (ticker: COIN) followed suit with a dive of around 9%, instantly breaking below the 50-day lifeline. The culprit behind all this was not a hacker attack, not a code vulnerability, but a newly revised draft bill called the "Digital Asset Market Clarity Act" (Clarity Act).
This text, finalized by Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks in closed-door meetings, used just one casual sentence to precisely sever the main artery of the entire centralized stablecoin industry: a comprehensive ban on any "passive yield" activities targeting stablecoin holders, and killing off any revenue structure that is economically "equivalent to interest." In this magical capital market, you thought you were running a decentralization revolution, but politicians saw it crystal clear—you were just using blockchain as a shell to run unlicensed deposit-taking, traditional banking operations. When the regulatory sickle finally swings down, those financial arbitrage games wrapped in geek jargon instantly reveal their true form.
Unplugging the Money-Printing Machine Called "Toll Fees"
To understand the underlying logic of this crash, you first need to peel away the glossy "tech company" veneer of stablecoin issuers and see how they actually make money. This isn't some unfathomable cyberpunk black magic at all—it's a brutally simple money-printing operation.
Take Circle as an example: USDC currently has a market cap of $78.6 billion. What does that mean? It means $78.6 billion in real, hard cash has been handed over to Circle for free. In the traditional financial world, when you deposit money in a bank, the bank grudgingly has to pay you interest. But in this crypto game called the "toll fee model," Circle takes these hundreds of billions and buys absolutely safe short-term U.S. Treasury bonds, harvesting risk-free hefty returns, while early USDC holders get nothing.
To spin this flywheel faster and get more people willing to convert their money into USDC, Circle and Cb constructed what could be called a genius "profit transmission pipeline." Although the previously passed GENIUS Act explicitly prohibited stablecoin issuers from directly paying interest to users, capital is always smarter than law.
Circle slices out a large portion of the massive returns generated by Treasury reserves and distributes them to Cb, while Cb then returns these funds through various "rewards programs" on its platform in disguised forms to users holding USDC. In analysts' eyes, USDC's yield business contributed nearly 20% of Cb's total revenue. This formed a perfect closed loop: users got deposit-like returns, platforms got massive liquidity, and issuers expanded market share.
But the latest draft of the "Clarity Act" is like a short-tempered perfectionist who directly kicks over this carefully designed profit-sharing table. The draft text explicitly states that not only is directly paying interest prohibited, but any "channel model economically equivalent to interest" must also be totally eliminated. It's like you're toll-collecting at a checkpoint. Previously, police didn't let you collect cash directly, so you had drivers scan a code to buy your overpriced bottled water. Now police tell you that as long as you make drivers pay, no matter what position you use, it all counts as robbery.
Amir Hajian, a digital asset researcher at Keyrock, put it perfectly: this directly drained the core driver of stablecoin adoption. When the money-printing machine's plug is ruthlessly pulled by politicians, Circle's stock price, which had skyrocketed 170% since February, naturally can only crash downward to value reality.
The Old Money's Fear and the Community Banks' Defense War
You might ask why Washington politicians suddenly came down so hard on stablecoin yield mechanisms. Is it really to protect those retail investors who got carried away gambling in crypto casinos?
Don't be naive. In this world, the only force that can make politicians so efficiently reach cross-party consensus is the extreme fear of Old Money in traditional finance. The essence of this legislation is not some normative guidance for technological innovation at all, but a naked-faced battle to defend traditional bank deposits. Over the past two years, traditional banking has had it rough, especially those community banks scattered across American states that rely on absorbing local residents' deposits to issue small and micro loans. When the Federal Reserve maintains a high-interest environment, traditional banks have to be stingy with deposit interest to control funding costs. And simultaneously, USDC in crypto exchanges can easily offer highly attractive "demand deposits rewards" by transmitting reserve returns.
The American Bankers Association's lobby group on Capitol Hill is famous for its iron fist. In their view, if stablecoins are allowed to continue implicitly paying interest, this is no longer crypto's self-entertainment in a niche circle, but blatantly siphoning off deposits from the traditional banking system. Capital is extremely smart—once the public realizes they only need to download a Cb app to get far higher passive returns than their corner community bank, a massive deposit migration becomes inevitable. This would be a devastating blow to the credit capacity and survival foundation of the traditional financial system. Therefore, the compromise result of this draft is extremely precise and vicious.
Legislators made a cut: allow stablecoin rewards based on "transaction activity," but absolutely prohibit passive yields based on "balances." In other words, you can encourage users to spend stablecoins, make transfers, and generate transaction flows like credit card points, but you absolutely cannot let users earn money just by sitting on cash in their accounts. Politicians use the law's boundaries to forcefully push stablecoins back to their original definition—a pure payment tool, not a high-yield deposit account dressed in digital clothes.
This is not just a dimensionality reduction attack on Circle's core business model, but a successful sniper strike by Wall Street's old-guard capital against Silicon Valley's financial upstarts.
Tether's Dark Humor: The "Reverse Compliance" Backstab of an Offshore Pirate
If Circle's stock crash is a tragedy, then something else that happened in the crypto market that day turned this play into an absurd black comedy. Just as Circle, obediently listening, undergoing full Deloitte audits year after year, and desperately kowtowing to American regulators, was being pressed face-first into the ground by its own government's legislation, its biggest rival, the offshore behemoth Tether frequently dancing in regulatory gray zones, dropped a bombshell the same day. Tether, with a market cap of $184 billion and firmly occupying the stablecoin throne, announced that it had hired one of the global "Big Four" accounting firms to conduct its first comprehensive, formal audit of its reserves. This news was absolutely the ultimate psychological blow to Circle.
Since its birth in 2014, Tether has been questioned by countless short-sellers and regulatory departments about its reserves' transparency. Previously, they only provided vague quarterly "proofs," refusing to even give proper audit reports. Leveraging this wild growth, USDT captured the vast majority of global liquidity. Now the plot has reversed. When Circle faces domestic legal constraints because it's too compliant and its revenue model is tightly controlled by American law, Tether, which has already made a fortune in outlaw mode, is using its massive profits to buy a credit endorsement from a top-tier auditing firm.
This is an extremely arrogant dimensionality reduction strike: the compliance barriers you Circle carefully constructed, I Tether can buy with money; and the domestic regulatory grinder you're now facing, I as an offshore issuer don't need to deal with at all. In Wall Street institutions' eyes, this contrast is extremely deadly. If Tether truly passes a complete Big Four audit and whitewashes its long-standing opacity label, its risk rating among institutional investors will drop significantly. On one side, there's USDC constrained by the "Clarity Act," facing legal lawsuits just for giving users a little interest; on the other side, there's USDT about to get top-tier endorsement and completely exempt from America's harsh domestic legislation. How would capital choose? This needs zero seconds of thought.
Tether announcing its audit at this critical moment is absolutely a carefully calculated PR campaign, not only stabbing Circle viciously in the back but flipping off the entire Washington regulatory system with a gleaming middle finger.
The Cruel Narrative: Degradation from "Yield-Bearing Assets" to "Entertainment Tokens"
The panic triggered by the draft continues to spread as its far-reaching restructuring of the entire crypto finance landscape is just beginning. Stablecoins stripped of their passive yield capability are facing a cruel genetic downgrade: they will be forced to degrade from a "yield-bearing asset" with compounding capability into a purely valueless medium with no time value—to put it bluntly, nothing but a pile of cyber entertainment tokens for transaction settlement only. This degradation is a structural blow to the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. Previously, large amounts of conservative capital were willing to stay on-chain because the underlying stablecoins themselves came with risk-free returns, providing a solid foundation for the entire DeFi lego tower. Once the "Clarity Act" completely blocks centralized issuers' profit transmission paths, those users accustomed to passive earnings will be forced to face two choices: either take on extreme smart contract risks and cascading liquidation risks, throwing stablecoins into those decentralized lending protocols that could collapse anytime to chase meager returns; or simply withdraw money back to the traditional banking system. Either outcome will cause irreversible shrinkage in the overall liquidity of the crypto market.
But capital will never sit idle. As Bitwise's research director Ryan Rasmussen predicted, this market will definitely spawn new workaround monetization schemes. Since you can't directly call it "interest" and can't be economically "equivalent to interest," each platform will definitely force their financial engineers to become literary masters and game designers. We can foresee that future crypto markets will be flooded with extremely complex "loyalty programs," "activity mining," or "ecosystem contribution rewards." Users may no longer earn returns simply because they have money in their accounts, but must complete meaningless clicks, transfers, or interactions on the platform daily to claim their piece of dividends. This is undoubtedly a massive regression and tragedy.
To cope with rigid regulatory language, the entire industry is forced to complicate, distort, and even gamify what were originally efficient and transparent yield distribution mechanisms. Clear Street analysts try to calm the market, arguing the current sell-off is an "shoot first, ask questions later" overreaction, after all Circle still holds 30% of a market destined to expand tenfold. But this cannot hide a cold fact: in the face of absolute regulatory supremacy, crypto's financial innovation remains too fragile to withstand a blow. The moment politicians reach compromise at the oak tables on Capitol Hill, the golden age of stablecoins making effortless money is completely nailed into history's coffin.