Conceptualizing an Institutional Framework to Mitigate Crypto-Assets’ Operational Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extent ecosystems of crypto financial assets (crypto-assets) lack parity and coherence across the globe. This asymmetry is further heightened with a knowledge gap in operational risk management, wherein the global landscape of crypto-assets is characterized by unprecedented external risks and internal vulnerabilities. In this study, we present a critical examination and comprehensive analysis of current crypto-asset operational guidelines across geographies. We benchmark these guidelines to the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) risk classification framework for crypto-assets, identifying gaps in the operations across organizations. We, hence, conceptualize a novel institutional framework which may help in understanding and mitigating the gaps in operational risks’ regulation of crypto-assets. Our proposed Crypto-asset Operational Risk Management (CORM) framework determines how operational risk associated with crypto-assets of financial institutions can be mitigated to respond to the increasing demand for crypto-assets, cross border payments, electronic money, and cryptocurrencies, across countries. Applicable to firms irrespective of their size and scale of operations, CORM aligns with global regulatory initiatives, facilitating compliance and fostering trust among stakeholders. Strengthening our argument of CORM’s applicability, we present its efficacy in the form of alternate hypothetical outcomes in two distinct real-life cases wherein crypto-asset exchanges succumbed to either external risks, such as hacking, or internal vulnerabilities. It paves the way for future regulatory response with a structured approach to addressing the unique operational risks associated with crypto-assets. The framework advocates for collaborative efforts among industry stakeholders, ensuring its adaptability to the rapidly evolving crypto landscape. It further contributes to the establishment of a more resilient and regulated financial ecosystem, inclusive of crypto-assets. By implementing CORM, institutions can navigate the complexities of crypto-assets while safeguarding their interests and promoting sustainable growth in the digital asset market.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".