Capturing Tail Risks in Cryptomarkets: A New Systemic Risk Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using daily returns of Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ripple and Stellar, we introduce a novel risk measure for quantitative-risk management in the cryptomarket that accounts for the significant co-movements between cryptocurrencies. We find that our model has a lower error margin when forecasting the extent of future losses than traditional risk measures, such as Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall. Most notably, we observe this in Litecoin’s results, where Expected Shortfall, on average, overestimates the potential fall in the price of Litecoin by 8.61% and underestimates it by 3.92% more than our model. This research shows that traditional risk measures, while not necessarily inappropriate, are imperfect and incomplete representations of risk when it comes to the cryptomarket. Our model provides a suitable alternative for risk managers, who prioritize lower error margins over failure rates, and highlights the value in exploring how risk measures that incorporate the unique characteristics of cryptocurrencies can be used to supplement and complement traditional risk measures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".