An Empirical Study of Volatility in Cryptocurrency Market
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptocurrencies have gained a lot of attraction across the globe. Most observers of the cryptocurrency market will agree that crypto volatility is in a different league altogether. There has been a growing need to understand the nature of volatility in cryptocurrency. This paper analyzes the performance of four mostly traded, different cryptocurrencies in terms of their risk and return. The relationship between the return and returns volatility among different currencies has been examined considering the daily closing prices from 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2022, using the family of the GARCH model. The study has explored the spillover and asymmetric effect of volatility by using the DCC GARCH model and EGARCH model, respectively. The causal behavior among different cryptocurrencies has also been examined using Granger causality. There has been a strong spillover effect among different cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ether, which are the top two cryptocurrencies with the highest market capitalization which have exhibited an asymmetric impact in their volatility as compared to the other two currencies, which are Litecoin and XRP.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it