Traders Use AI as a ‘Second Screen’ to Restore Context During Crypto Volatility
During intense crypto volatility and liquidation cascades, traders increasingly turn to AI tools as a “second screen” to compress information, restore context, and slow impulsive reactions. The author cites MEXC usage data since August 2025 — 2.35 million users, 10.8 million interactions, average daily active users around 93,000 and a single-day peak near 157,000 — with conversational bots seeing the largest share of activity. Rather than pure prediction, traders value AI for fast summaries, noise filtering, and clear signals that reduce cognitive overload during stress. Widespread use of interpretation-focused AI affects market structure: high-quality context may reduce herding, while poor or opaque AI outputs can amplify correlated behavior and systemic risk. The piece argues exchanges will be judged not only on liquidity and fees but also on their ability to orient users under stress. The next phase should emphasize accountability and provenance — showing sources, distinguishing confirmed facts from inference, and avoiding authoritative forecasts that encourage over-delegation. As AI becomes the realtime translation layer for speed, its role in shaping crowd understanding makes governance, monitoring, and transparency critical to market stability.
Neutral
The article describes a structural change rather than a direct bullish or bearish catalyst. Short-term, increased AI use during volatility can reduce impulsive retail selling by improving situational awareness, which may dampen sharp moves and support stability. Conversely, if many participants rely on similar opaque AI signals, correlated responses could amplify stress and worsen flash crashes. Historical parallels include algorithmic trading episodes where strategy crowding increased volatility (e.g., 2010 Flash Crash, episodes of CTA/quant crowding). Long-term, better transparency, provenance, and governance of AI tools could be stabilizing by reducing rumor-driven herding and improving market resilience. But without accountability, adoption may raise systemic risk as AI-driven interpretations become part of market structure. Therefore the net impact is ambiguous — conditional on implementation and oversight — and best classified as neutral.