agentleFS
brainbytes-devbrainbytes-dev/everything-claude-trading/skills/crypto/cross-chain-arbitrage/SKILL.md

cross-chain-arbitrage

Skill16 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Price Discrepancy Sources: - CEX prices update via order book; DEX prices update via AMM formula on each trade - During volatile periods, DEX prices lag because they require on-chain transactions to update - Stale liquidity on DEXs creates arbitrage until arbitrageurs align prices - Typical discrepancy: 0.1-0.5% in calm markets, 1-5% during volatility spikes Execution Flow: CEX-DEX Specific Challenges: - Latency asymmetry — CEX APIs respond in milliseconds; DEX transactions take 12+ seconds (Ethereum) to confirm - Inventory management…

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before executing arbitrage strategies, verify:

    line 249

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Cross-Chain and CEX-DEX Arbitrage

When to Activate

  • Identifying and evaluating arbitrage opportunities between centralized and decentralized exchanges
  • Analyzing cross-chain price discrepancies and bridge-based arbitrage
  • Designing triangular or multi-hop arbitrage strategies
  • Assessing execution risk, latency, gas costs, and bridge risks for arbitrage operations
  • Building or evaluating atomic arbitrage strategies using flash loans

Core Concepts

CEX-DEX Arbitrage

Price Discrepancy Sources:

  • CEX prices update via order book; DEX prices update via AMM formula on each trade
  • During volatile periods, DEX prices lag because they require on-chain transactions to update
  • Stale liquidity on DEXs creates arbitrage until arbitrageurs align prices
  • Typical discrepancy: 0.1-0.5% in calm markets, 1-5% during volatility spikes

Execution Flow:

1. Monitor CEX order books and DEX pool prices simultaneously
2. Detect discrepancy exceeding threshold (gas + fees + slippage)
3. Execute simultaneously:
   a. Buy on cheaper venue
   b. Sell on more expensive venue
4. Net inventory to zero

Two modes:
- Atomic (DEX-only): single transaction using flash loans, no capital risk
- Non-atomic (CEX-DEX): requires capital on both venues, execution risk between legs

CEX-DEX Specific Challenges:

  • Latency asymmetry — CEX APIs respond in milliseconds; DEX transactions take 12+ seconds (Ethereum) to confirm
  • Inventory management — must pre-fund both CEX and DEX sides; capital is fragmented
  • Settlement mismatch — CEX fills are instant; DEX fills are probabilistic until block confirmation
  • Gas price spikes — during volatile periods when arb opportunities are largest, gas prices also spike
  • MEV competition — on-chain leg is visible to searchers who may frontrun or sandwich

Cross-Chain Arbitrage

Bridge Arbitrage:

  • Same asset trades at different prices on different chains
  • Opportunity: buy on cheap chain, bridge to expensive chain, sell
  • Bottleneck: bridge latency (minutes to hours) and bridge fees (0.1-0.5%)
  • Risk: price can converge during bridge transit, erasing profit
  • Bridge liquidity limits: large arbs may exceed bridge capacity

Types of Cross-Chain Price Discrepancies:

1. Native token pricing: ETH on Ethereum vs ETH on Arbitrum
   - Usually tight (<0.1%) due to fast bridging

2. Wrapped/bridged tokens: USDC on Ethereum vs USDC.e on Avalanche
   - Can diverge during bridge congestion or depeg events

3. DEX pool pricing: Uniswap (Ethereum) vs Trader Joe (Avalanche)
   - Different pool depths create persistent small discrepancies

4. Synthetic assets: cross-chain synthetics may diverge from underlying

Bridge Risk Categories:

  • Smart contract risk — bridge contracts are high-value targets; $2B+ stolen from bridges historically
  • Validator/relayer risk — multisig or validator set can be compromised
  • Liquidity risk — bridge may not have enough liquidity for your trade size
  • Finality risk — reorgs on source chain can invalidate bridge message
  • Censorship risk — bridge operators can delay or block transactions

Triangular Arbitrage

Concept: Exploit pricing inconsistencies across three or more trading pairs that form a cycle.

On-Chain Triangular Arbitrage:

Example cycle: ETH -> USDC -> DAI -> ETH

Pool 1 (ETH/USDC): 1 ETH = 2000 USDC
Pool 2 (USDC/DAI): 1 USDC = 1.002 DAI
Pool 3 (DAI/ETH):  2000 DAI = 1.003 ETH

Execution:
1. Start with 10 ETH
2. Swap 10 ETH -> 20,000 USDC (Pool 1)
3. Swap 20,000 USDC -> 20,040 DAI (Pool 2)
4. Swap 20,040 DAI -> 10.03 ETH (Pool 3)
5. Profit: 0.03 ETH minus gas costs

Profitability condition:
product(exchange_rates_around_cycle) > 1 + total_fees + gas_cost/trade_size

Multi-Hop Optimization:

  • More hops = more potential inefficiency to capture
  • But also more gas costs and slippage per hop
  • Optimal path finding is a graph problem: Bellman-Ford algorithm detects negative cycles (profitable arbitrage loops)
  • DEX aggregators (1inch, Paraswap) solve this for users but extract some value

Atomic Arbitrage with Flash Loans

Flash Loan Arbitrage Pattern:

Single transaction:
1. Borrow X tokens from Aave/dYdX (flash loan, no collateral)
2. Execute arbitrage trades across DEX pools
3. Repay loan + fee (0.05% on Aave, 0% on dYdX)
4. Keep profit

Advantages:
- Zero capital requirement (borrow and repay in same tx)
- Zero market risk (atomic execution — all or nothing)
- No inventory to manage

Constraints:
- Must complete within single transaction (single block)
- Cannot cross chains (flash loans are same-chain only)
- Gas costs can be high for complex multi-hop routes
- Competitive — many searchers target same opportunities

Methodology

Opportunity Detection

  1. Price monitoring — maintain real-time price feeds for same asset across venues
  2. Threshold calculation — minimum spread = gas_cost + bridge_fee + slippage + risk_premium
  3. Liquidity check — verify sufficient depth on both sides to execute at expected prices
  4. Path optimization — for multi-hop, find the optimal route maximizing net profit
  5. Execution decision — only proceed if expected profit exceeds minimum threshold after all costs

Profitability Calculation

Atomic (flash loan) arbitrage:
Net profit = gross_spread * trade_size - gas_cost - flash_loan_fee - slippage

CEX-DEX arbitrage:
Net profit = gross_spread * trade_size - gas_cost - CEX_fees - slippage
           - capital_cost * execution_time - hedge_cost

Cross-chain arbitrage:
Net profit = gross_spread * trade_size - gas_cost_chain_A - gas_cost_chain_B
           - bridge_fee - slippage - bridge_time_risk_premium

Break-even spread:
min_spread = (total_costs) / trade_size

Latency and Infrastructure

Competitive advantage sources:
1. Co-located nodes (reduces block propagation latency)
2. Private mempool access (Flashbots, MEV-boost builders)
3. Pre-signed transactions ready to submit
4. Multi-chain node infrastructure
5. Custom DEX routing algorithms
6. Direct builder relationships for bundle inclusion

Latency hierarchy:
- HFT on CEX: microseconds
- MEV searcher on-chain: milliseconds to submit, 12s to confirm
- Cross-chain arb: minutes to hours (bridge dependent)

Risk Management for Arbitrage

Position limits:
- Max single arb size: limited by pool depth (aim for <2% price impact)
- Max bridge exposure: never bridge more than you can afford to lose
- Max inventory imbalance: for CEX-DEX, delta-neutral within 5 minutes

Stop conditions:
- Gas price >3x normal: pause (costs eat profits)
- Bridge delays >2x normal: stop bridging (increased risk)
- Failed transaction rate >20%: investigate and halt
- Cumulative loss exceeds daily profit: halt and review

Examples

Example 1: CEX-DEX ETH Arbitrage

CEX (Binance): ETH/USDT bid = $2,005.00
DEX (Uniswap): ETH/USDC pool price = $2,000.00
Spread: $5.00 (0.25%)

Costs:
- Uniswap fee: 0.05% = $1.00 per ETH
- Gas for DEX swap: $8 (20 ETH batch)
- Binance taker fee: 0.075% = $1.50 per ETH
- Slippage estimate: 0.02% = $0.40 per ETH

Net profit per ETH: $5.00 - $1.00 - $0.40 - $1.50 - $0.40 = $1.70
For 20 ETH batch: $34.00 - $8 gas = $26.00 net

Execution: Buy 20 ETH on Uniswap, sell 20 ETH on Binance simultaneously
Capital required: $40,000 USDC on-chain + 20 ETH on Binance
Annualized return on capital depends on frequency of opportunities.

Example 2: Cross-Chain Stablecoin Arbitrage

USDC on Ethereum: $1.000
USDC on Arbitrum (via Curve): $0.997 (slight discount)

Strategy:
1. Buy USDC on Arbitrum Curve pool at $0.997
2. Bridge to Ethereum via native bridge (free, but 7-day delay)
   Or use fast bridge (Across, Hop) for ~0.05% fee, 2 min

Fast bridge execution:
- Gross profit: 0.3%
- Bridge fee: 0.05%
- Gas (Arbitrum swap): $0.50
- Gas (Ethereum receive): $5
- Net profit: 0.25% - ($5.50 / trade_size)

Break-even trade size: $5.50 / 0.0025 = $2,200 minimum
For $50,000 trade: $125 - $5.50 = $119.50 profit

Risk: USDC discount could widen during transit. Bridge smart contract risk.

Example 3: Triangular Flash Loan Arbitrage

Detected opportunity on Uniswap v3 (Ethereum):

Pool A (WETH/USDC 0.05%): 1 WETH = 2,001 USDC
Pool B (USDC/DAI 0.01%): 1 USDC = 1.0008 DAI
Pool C (DAI/WETH 0.30%): 2,000 DAI = 1.001 WETH

Cycle product: (1/2001) * (1/1.0008) * (2000 * 1.001) = 1.00089
Gross profit per cycle: 0.089%

Flash loan execution:
1. Borrow 100 WETH from Aave
2. Swap 100 WETH -> 200,100 USDC (Pool A, fee: 100 USDC)
3. Swap 200,100 USDC -> 200,260 DAI (Pool B, fee: 20 USDC equiv)
4. Swap 200,260 DAI -> 100.16 WETH (Pool C, fee: 600 DAI equiv)
5. Repay 100 WETH + 0.05 WETH (flash loan fee)
6. Profit: 0.11 WETH (~$220)
7. Gas cost: ~$30

Net profit: ~$190 in a single atomic transaction
Submit via Flashbots to prevent frontrunning.

Quality Gate

Before executing arbitrage strategies, verify:

  • All costs are precisely calculated — gas, fees, slippage, bridge fees, capital costs
  • Liquidity depth is verified on both sides — check order book / pool reserves at trade size
  • Execution risk is quantified — what happens if one leg fails (CEX-DEX) or bridge delays (cross-chain)?
  • Smart contract interactions are tested on testnet or fork before mainnet deployment
  • Flash loan logic includes revert-on-loss safety check (transaction reverts if unprofitable)
  • Bridge risks are assessed and exposure limited — never bridge more than acceptable loss amount
  • Competition level is understood — if margins are sub-$10, likely not worth manual execution
  • Gas estimation includes priority fees during volatile periods when arb opportunities are most common
  • Monitoring and alerting systems are in place for live arbitrage bots
  • Regulatory considerations: market manipulation concerns for certain arbitrage strategies

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.