Using US Stock Sectors to Diversify, Hedge, and Provide Safe Havens for NFT Coins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores risk management strategies for investments in Nonfungible Token (NFT) coins through their diversification within the S&P 500 industry sectors. Given the significant decline in NFT coin values in 2022, understanding these strategies is critical for investors. This study focused on four major NFT coins (Enjin coin (ENJ), MANA, Theta coin (THETA), and the Tezos coin (XTZ)) and employed ETFs representing the major S&P 500 sectors for analysis. Dynamic conditional correlation GARCH models have been used, to estimate correlations between the NFT coins and US industry sector ETFs. Our findings showed that while most S&P 500 sectors offered diversification benefits in the pre-COVID period, all of them did during the COVID period. However, these sectors are generally weak safe havens and poor hedges. Portfolio analysis suggests an optimal NFT coin weighting of 10–30%, based on the Sharpe ratio. This study aims to pave the way for informed decision-making in the dynamic NFT market.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".