Relations among Bitcoin Futures, Bitcoin Spot, Investor Attention, and Sentiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates the function of price discovery between the Bitcoin futures and the spot markets while also analyzing the impact of investor sentiment and attention on these markets. This study utilizes various statistical models to examine the short-term and long-term relations between these variables, including the bivariate Granger causality model, the ARDL and NARDL models, and the Johansen cointegration procedure with a vector error correction mechanism. The results suggest that there is no statistical evidence of price discovery between the Bitcoin spot price and futures, and the term structure of the Bitcoin futures neither enriches nor impairs this lead lag relation. However, the study finds robust evidence of a long-run cointegrating relation between the two markets and the presence of asymmetry in them. Moreover, this research indicates that investor sentiment exhibits a lead lag relation with both the Bitcoin futures and the spot markets, while investor attention only leads to the Bitcoin spot market, without showing any lead lag relation with the Bitcoin futures. These findings highlight the crucial role of investor behavior in affecting both Bitcoin futures and spot prices.
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 | 0.001 | 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".