Bitcoin Return Prediction: Is It Possible via Stock-to-Flow, Metcalfe’s Law, Technical Analysis, or Market Sentiment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Popular methods to value Bitcoin include the stock-to-flow model, Metcalfe’s Law, technical analysis, and sentiment-related measures. Within this paper, I test whether such models and variables are predictive of Bitcoin’s returns. I find that the stock-to-flow model predictions and Metcalfe’s Law help to explain Bitcoin’s returns in-sample but have limited to no ability to predict Bitcoin’s returns out-of-sample. In contrast, Bitcoin market sentiment and technical analysis measures are generally unrelated to Bitcoin’s returns in-sample and are poor predictors of Bitcoin’s returns out-of-sample. Despite the poor performance of Bitcoin return predictors within out-of-sample regressions, I demonstrate that a very successful out-of-sample Bitcoin tactical allocation or “market timing” strategy is formed via blending out-of-sample univariate model predictions. This OOS-blended model trading strategy, which algorithmically allocates between Bitcoin and cash (USD), significantly outperforms buying-and-holding or “HODL”ing Bitcoin, boosting CAPM alpha by almost 1300 basis points while also increasing portfolio Sharpe Ratio and Sortino Ratio and dramatically reducing portfolio maximum drawdown relative to buying-and-holding Bitcoin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".