Artificial intelligence has reshaped multiple industries, and everywhere it goes, the same question follows: Will it replace humans? In crypto, its impact is already visible, from AI-driven trading bots to agentic trading systems.
However, Alex Svanevik, CEO and co-founder of Nansen, argues that AI is not a substitute for human judgment, but rather an augmentation. In an exclusive interview with BeInCrypto, Svanevik explores this shift in depth and outlines what lies ahead for AI-powered analysis.
The AI Debate in Crypto: Nansen CEO Argues for Augmentation, Not Replacement
On January 21, Nansen announced the launch of its AI-powered on-chain trading functionality. This marks a major shift from a pure analytics platform to a unified insight-and-execution product.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Built on its proprietary dataset of more than 500 million labeled wallets, the new release allows users to manage portfolios, interpret live on-chain signals, and get data-backed suggestions. It also enables users to execute trades directly within Nansen.
Furthermore, the launch unlocks what Nansen calls “vibe trading.” It describes this as a more intuitive way to move from insight to on-chain execution without switching tools.
As AI takes on more analytical work, the role of human analysts comes into question. Svanevik said AI excels at processing scale, allowing it to analyze hundreds of millions of wallets, track cross-chain flows, and identify patterns that would be difficult for humans to detect.
However, he emphasized that decision-making remains with users, who ultimately guide the process by asking the right questions and approving actions.
What Makes Analysis Credible in an AI-First Crypto Market?
Research suggests that increased reliance on artificial intelligence tools can be linked to diminished critical thinking skills. In cryptocurrency markets, where traders must navigate extreme volatility and high-risk assets, the stakes are even higher.
Sponsored
Sponsored
However, Svanevik offered a different view. He argued that “good AI” surfaces more signals, pushing users to think more critically about execution rather than less.
The executive also emphasized that neither AI nor human analysts should be trusted blindly. According to him, what matters is whether the analysis consistently holds up over time.
When it comes to credibility in an AI-first market, the CEO explained that,
He shared that the most straightforward test is practical. Svanevik suggested that users should ask questions that matter to them and judge whether the responses are grounded, useful, and actionable, noting that users tend to be effective judges of quality.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Why AI Can Analyze On-chain Data, but Can’t Replace Human Conviction
Human analysts often align trading decisions with on-chain metrics, price data, and other signals through judgment and contextual interpretation. On the other hand, AI systems rely on patterns learned from past data.
When asked whether AI could eventually develop a similar form of judgment, Svanevik disclosed that it is likely, though not in a human sense.
He detailed that AI would develop its own form of contextual reasoning. The executive believes it could be more effective at integrating live data across a far broader set of variables than any human could track.
Sponsored
Sponsored
However, he also identified one aspect of on-chain analysis that he believes AI will never fully replace: taking responsibility for decisions under uncertainty.
Svanevik pointed out that while AI can surface patterns, probabilities, and potential scenarios, and assess what has happened or what might happen based on data, it cannot determine an individual’s risk tolerance, value judgments, or take accountability for decisions when outcomes turn negative.
He stressed that, regardless of how advanced AI models become, credibility will continue to rest with humans in matters of judgment, accountability, and conviction. AI may inform decisions, he said, but humans ultimately make them and bear the consequences.
Ultimately, Svanevik sees AI as a powerful enabler rather than a decision-maker. While AI can surface patterns, probabilities, and insights at unprecedented scale, human judgment remains central for risk, accountability, and conviction.
As AI-driven analysis becomes more prevalent, trust will increasingly rest with platforms that can continuously prove the quality of their insights. At the same time, humans remain responsible for deciding what matters and standing behind the outcomes.
Source: https://beincrypto.com/ai-in-crypto-humans-vs-machines-nansen-ceo/
