Time and frequency dynamics between NFT coins and economic uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are one-of-a-kind digital assets that are stored on a blockchain. Examples of NFTs include art (e.g., image, video, animation), collectables (e.g., autographs), and objects from games (e.g., weapons and poisons). NFTs provide content creators and artists a way to promote and sell their unique digital material online. NFT coins underpin the ecosystems that support NFTs and are a new and emerging asset class and, as a new and emerging asset class, NFT coins are not immune to economic uncertainty. This research seeks to address the following questions. What is the time and frequency relationship between economic uncertainty and NFT coins? Is the relationship similar across different NFT coins? As an emerging asset, do NFT coins exhibit explosive behavior and if so, what role does economic uncertainty play in their formation? Using a new Twitter-based economic uncertainty index and a related equity market uncertainty index it is found that wavelet coherence between NFT coin prices (ENJ, MANA, THETA, XTZ) and economic uncertainty or market uncertainty is strongest during the periods January 2020 to July 2020 and January 2022 to July 2022. Periods of high significance are centered around the 64-day scale. During periods of high coherence, economic and market uncertainty exhibit an out of phase relationship with NFT coin prices. Network connectedness shows that the highest connectedness occurred during 2020 and 2022 which is consistent with the findings from wavelet analysis. Infectious disease outbreaks (COVID-19), NFT coin price volatility, and Twitter-based economic uncertainty determine bubbles in NFT coin 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".