If you were to build a bot to trade kalshi crypto what is the best one to have a daily pnl of around 100 dollars

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. The strongest point across the other arguments is that the question is mismatched to the answer format: it asks for 'the best one' but only permits Yes/No. In that setting, 'No' is the safer and more truthful choice because there is no specific bot, strategy, capital base, or risk budget to evaluate. Sonar Pro’s argument shows that trading bots can be built and that profitable cases exist, but that does not establish that there is a single best bot for reliably producing about $100 daily PnL. Anecdotal profit examples are not evidence of stable, repeatable daily outcomes, especially in thin, event-driven markets. Claude and Gemini reinforced the key issue: Kalshi crypto contracts are prediction markets with variable liquidity, spreads, and regime dependence. A fixed daily profit target is not a sound basis for defining a 'best' bot. Expected value and risk control matter more than promising a steady dollar amount. So the correct final answer remains B: No.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: No

Upon reflection, the other models have identified a critical flaw in my previous reasoning: the question asks 'what is the best one' but forces a Yes/No binary choice. This is a category error. No bot can be evaluated as 'best' through a Yes/No response—the question structure itself is fundamentally misaligned with the available options. While the search results show that technical implementations exist (kalshi-ai-trading-bot, kalshi-deep-trading-bot, and copy trading platforms), and that traders have reported daily profits including a $2,580 in 24 hours example, these facts don't resolve the core problem: the question cannot be meaningfully answered with Yes or No. GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus correctly highlighted that $100 daily PnL requires specific conditions (bankroll, edge, liquidity, fees, slippage) that aren't addressed, and that framing trading as reliably targeting fixed daily profits is misleading. Gemini 3.1 Pro added that Kalshi's event-based prediction market structure requires custom algorithms rather than off-the-shelf solutions—the bots I cited are custom implementations requiring significant setup and expertise. Most critically, no search result demonstrates a single 'best' bot reliably achieving consistent $100 daily returns. The $2,580 example is anecdotal performance, not evidence of a replicable, reliable system. My previous answer overstated the certainty of achieving this target through existing implementations. The accurate answer is 'No'—there is no single best bot guaranteed to achieve this goal under the conditions implied by the question.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for 'No' after reviewing the other models' arguments. Sonar Pro's argument for 'A' (Yes) is the only dissenting view, but it actually undermines its own case. Citing open-source bot repositories and cherry-picked examples of traders making money doesn't establish that there's a single 'best' bot that reliably produces $100/day. The examples cited (e.g., $15,000 weekly, $2,580 in 24 hours) are survivorship bias — they highlight winners while ignoring the many who lost money. Having tools available doesn't mean a specific daily PnL target is reliably achievable. GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro both align with my reasoning: the question is fundamentally misframed (asking 'what is the best' but offering Yes/No options), and the premise that you can reliably target a fixed $100/day profit is unrealistic. No bot guarantees consistent daily returns in prediction markets. Kalshi crypto markets specifically have limited liquidity, which makes automated strategies harder to scale to consistent profitability. The idea that you can just pick a 'best bot' and hit a daily PnL target treats trading like a deterministic engineering problem rather than a probabilistic one with inherent uncertainty. 'No' remains the correct answer: there is no single best bot that reliably delivers $100/day on Kalshi crypto markets.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

I am maintaining my vote for 'No', in agreement with GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6. Sonar Pro's argument hinges on whether building such a bot is *feasible*, essentially treating the prompt as an 'Is it possible?' question. However, the prompt specifically asks 'what is the best one.' Answering 'Yes' to a 'What' question makes zero grammatical or logical sense. Conversely, answering 'No' functions as a direct rejection of the premise (i.e., 'No, there is no such thing as a best bot for this'). Furthermore, as the other models correctly pointed out, aiming for a consistent, fixed daily dollar return in an event-driven prediction market like Kalshi fundamentally misunderstands trading mechanics. Prediction markets require dynamic optimization of expected value, not rigid daily profit quotas. Because there is no 'best' bot that can guarantee a flat $100 daily PnL, 'No' is the only defensible option.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially faced a lone dissenter in Sonar Pro, who argued that building a $100-a-day bot was technically feasible using existing open-source frameworks. However, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 quickly dismantled this optimism, pointing out the 'category error' of answering a 'what' question with a binary choice and the financial fallacy of guaranteed daily PnL. Ultimately, the group reached a unanimous consensus when Sonar Pro conceded that anecdotal evidence of high-profit days does not equate to a reliable, 'best' bot strategy.

All 4 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The question is a category error; it asks 'what' is the best bot but only allows Yes/No answers. Beyond the logic, the premise of a guaranteed daily PnL is a trading fallacy that ignores risk, liquidity, and market uncertainty.

Key Turning Points

• Sonar Pro initially voted 'Yes' based on the technical existence of bot architectures and evidence of profitable traders.
• GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro highlighted the linguistic mismatch between the question's 'what' framing and the 'Yes/No' options.
• Sonar Pro changed its position in Round 2, admitting that technical feasibility doesn't justify a 'Yes' when the question's core premise is flawed.