Analyzing Portfolio Optimization in Cryptocurrency Markets: A Comparative Study of Short-Term Investment Strategies Using Hourly Data Approach
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 paper investigates portfolio optimization methodologies and short-term investment strategies in the context of the cryptocurrency market, focusing on ten major cryptocurrencies from June 2020 to March 2024. Using hourly data, we apply the Kurtosis Minimization methodology, along with other optimization strategies, to construct and assess portfolios across various rebalancing frequencies. Our empirical analysis reveals significant volatility, skewness, and kurtosis in cryptocurrencies, highlighting the need for sophisticated portfolio management techniques. We discover that the Kurtosis Minimization methodology consistently outperforms other optimization strategies, especially in shorter-term investment horizons, delivering optimal returns to investors. Additionally, our findings emphasize the importance of dynamic portfolio management, stressing the necessity of regular rebalancing in the volatile cryptocurrency market. Overall, this study offers valuable insights into optimizing cryptocurrency portfolios, providing practical guidance for investors and portfolio managers navigating this rapidly evolving market landscape.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it