A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Stablecoins
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
This study reviews the current state of empirical literature on stablecoins. Based on a sample of 22 peer-reviewed articles, we analyze statistical approaches, data sources, variables, and metrics, as well as stablecoin types investigated and future research avenues. The analysis reveals three major clusters: (1) studies on the stability or volatility of different stablecoins, their designs, and safe-haven-properties, (2) the interrelations of stablecoins with other crypto assets and markets, specifically Bitcoin, and (3) the relationship of stablecoins with (non-crypto) macroeconomic factors. Based on our analysis, we note future research should explore diverse methodological approaches, data sources, different stablecoins, or more granular datasets and identify five topics we consider most significant and promising: (1) the use of stablecoins in emerging markets, (2) the effect of stablecoins on the stability of currencies, (3) analyses of stablecoin users, (4) adoption and use cases of stablecoins outside of crypto markets, and (5) algorithmic stablecoins.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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