Analyzing Safe Haven, Hedging and Diversifier Characteristics of Heterogeneous Cryptocurrencies against G7 and BRICS Market Indexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptocurrency markets have experienced large growth in recent years, with an increase in the number and diversity of traded assets. Previous work has addressed the economic properties of Bitcoin with regards to its hedging or diversification properties. However, the surge of many alternatives, applications, and decentralized finance services on a variety of blockchain networks requires a re-examination of those properties, including indexes from outside the big economies and the inclusion of a variety of cryptocurrencies. In this paper, we report the results of studying the most representative cryptocurrency of each consensus mechanism by trading volume, forming a list of twenty-four cryptocurrencies from the 1st of January 2018 to the 30th of September 2022. Using the Baur and McDermott model, we examine hedge, safe haven, and diversifier properties of all assets for all G7 country’s major indexes as well as all BRICS major indexes breaking it down by two attributes: kind of blockchain technology and pre/during COVID health crisis. Results show that both attributes play an important role in the hedge, safe haven, and diversifier properties associated with the asset. Concretely: stablecoins appear to be the only ones to maintain hedge property in most analyzed markets pre- and during-COVID; Bitcoin investment properties shifted after the COVID crisis started; China and Russia stopped being correlated with the cryptocurrency after the COVID crisis hit.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".