MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388592734 · doi:10.32479/ijefi.14956

An Empirical Investigation of Bitcoin Hedging Capabilities against Inflation using VECM: The Case of United States, Eurozone, Philippines, Ukraine, Canada, India, and Nigeria

2023· article· en· W4388592734 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kolawole Ibrahim Gbolahan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Financial Issues · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflation (cosmology)HedgeEconomicsPortfolioMonetary economicsError correction modelEmerging marketsFinancial economicsCointegrationMacroeconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines Bitcoin's potential as an inflation hedge in different countries, including the United States, the Eurozone, the Philippines, Ukraine, Canada, India, and Nigeria. The study reveals varying results across countries using the Vector Error Correlation Model (VECM) with secondary monthly data from January 2012 to June 2023 for Bitcoin prices and inflation rates. Bitcoin exhibits an insignificant short-term relationship in the United States but a significant long-term negative correlation, suggesting it may not be a reliable inflation hedge. Similarly, no significant relationship was found in the Eurozone, the Philippines, Ukraine and Nigeria, indicating Bitcoin's limited effectiveness as an inflation hedge. Contrastingly, the study identifies a significant positive relationship between Bitcoin and inflation in Canada and India, indicating potential hedging against inflation within these economies. Therefore, investors, portfolio managers, and policymakers should consider these country-specific findings when evaluating Bitcoin's role as an inflation hedge. Furthermore, this study contributes valuable insights into cryptocurrencies and their potential in financial risk management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Financial IssuesSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207