Trader appetite for AI-run portfolios outpaces rules on who is liable when it fails
A US survey finds 70% of crypto traders would let AI manage their holdings, exposing a regulatory gap over accountability, custody and oversight of automated tools.
A survey of US crypto traders has found that roughly 70% would be willing to let artificial intelligence manage their portfolios, a figure that speaks to shifting attitudes towards automation rather than any proven track record for AI-driven trading tools, according to Coincu.
The finding, drawn from a survey of active US crypto traders, measures stated openness rather than actual adoption. No trader in the sample was necessarily using an AI system to run their holdings at the time of polling; the figure instead reflects a hypothetical willingness to hand over decision-making to software.
Sentiment, not evidence of performance
That distinction matters for anyone reading the headline number as a market signal. A trader saying they “would let” AI manage a portfolio is expressing trust in the concept, not confirming that such tools reduce losses, beat manual strategies, or even function reliably during periods of stress.
The survey is also narrow in scope. Its results apply specifically to active US crypto traders and cannot be extended to global markets, to retail investors who do not trade digital assets, or to institutional allocators, whose adoption of automated tools tends to follow far stricter internal risk and compliance processes.
Plausible drivers behind the willingness include the appeal of continuous, round-the-clock market monitoring, faster reaction to sudden price swings, and a desire to strip emotion out of trading decisions. Sentiment towards automation also tends to move with broader market mood, often tracked through gauges such as the Crypto Fear and Greed Index, with traders more open to systematic tools during periods of uncertainty.
Where the regulatory questions begin
What counts as “AI managing a portfolio” varies enormously. At one end sit tools that flag opportunities or risks and let the user decide; at the other, systems granted authority to execute trades and rebalance holdings without further sign-off. Regulators in the UK and EU have so far drawn little distinction between these categories when it comes to crypto-specific products, even as both the FCA and bodies enforcing MiCA scrutinise AI use in traditional financial advice.
That gap becomes material once losses occur. If an autonomous AI tool executes a poor trade, existing consumer-protection frameworks offer little clarity on where liability sits — with the trader who delegated control, the platform offering the tool, or the developer of the underlying model. Opaque, black-box systems compound the problem, since traders relying on them may struggle to establish why a decision was made at all, let alone contest it.
None of this diminishes the scale of trader interest the survey points to. But willingness to delegate is not the same as a functioning oversight regime, and the two are likely to diverge further as more platforms market AI-assisted allocation features to retail crypto users without corresponding rules on disclosure, suitability, or redress.
Read more: Hyve’s Signal Week deal signals private equity’s bet on crypto-TradFi convergence
