Sustainable versus Conventional Cryptocurrencies in the Face of Cryptocurrency Uncertainty Indices: An Analysis across Time and Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are conventional and sustainable cryptocurrencies effective hedging instruments for high cryptocurrency uncertainty? This paper examines co-movements between conventional (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance Coin, Tether) and sustainable (Cardano, Powerledger, Stellar, Ripple) cryptocurrencies and two cryptocurrency uncertainty indices (UCRY price and UCRY policy). Using weekly returns from 1 October 2017 to 30 March 2021, the paper employs the bivariate wavelet coherence method considering three investment horizons, short-term, medium-term, and long-term. The results confirm that conventional and sustainable cryptocurrencies show consistent positive and identical co-movements with both cryptocurrency uncertainty indices at the short-term horizon during COVID-19 and negative co-movement at the medium-term investment horizon, suggesting the short-term hedging ability of dirty/green cryptocurrencies for high UCRY price and policy. Evidence of negative coherences shows that higher cryptocurrency prices and policy uncertainties lead to lower cryptocurrency returns, reflecting the adverse impact of higher uncertainties on the trust of crypto traders and investors. Weak co-movement is found between dirty/green cryptocurrencies and UCRY price/policy indices, which suggests the possible role of dirty/green cryptocurrencies as a weak hedge for UCRY price and policy indices. These findings provide potential avenues to hedge cryptocurrency uncertainties using conventional and sustainable cryptocurrencies across multiple investment horizons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".