Dynamic Evolution Analysis of Cryptocurrency Market: A Network Science Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, network analysis has been employed to study the dynamic evolution of the cryptocurrency market from 1 January 2020 to 1 January 2024. This approach facilitates an in-depth exploration of the market’s response to several major events during this period, including the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the bankruptcy of FTX, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges. The study focuses on analysing key network characteristics of the cryptocurrency market, namely: (a) degree centrality, (b) betweenness centrality, (c) clustering coefficient and (d) average path length. Additionally, we explore the co-movements within the market, categorising cryptocurrencies into functional groups for a comparative analysis. This approach enables us to examine shifts in the cryptocurrency network topology, providing insights into how different groups of cryptocurrencies interact with and influence each other. Through this network analysis, we aim to shed light on the intricate interrelationships among cryptocurrencies. The findings of this study are intended to provide investors with valuable insights, potentially guiding the development of more informed and strategic diversification strategies in the dynamic and evolving landscape of the cryptocurrency market. JEL Codes: G11, G12, D85
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".