Beyond the Buzz: A Measured Look at Bitcoin’s Viability as Money
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines Bitcoin’s viability as money through the lens of its risk profile, with a particular focus on its store of value function. We employ a suite of wavelet techniques, including Wavelet Transform (WT), Wavelet Transform Coherence (WTC), Multiple Wavelet Coherence (MWC), and Partial Wavelet Coherence (PWC), to decompose the risk structure of Bitcoin and analyze its relationship with various systematic risk factors. Our dataset spans from 13 August 2015 to 29 June 2024, and includes Bitcoin, major commodities, global and US equities, Shari’ah-compliant equities, Ethereum, and the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR). We find that Bitcoin’s risk profile is increasingly aligned with traditional financial assets, indicating growing market integration. While Bitcoin exhibits high volatility, a significant portion of this volatility can be attributed to systematic rather than idiosyncratic factors. This suggests that Bitcoin’s risk may be more diversifiable than previously thought. Our findings have important implications for monetary policy and financial regulation, challenging the notion that Bitcoin’s volatility precludes its use as money and suggesting that regulatory approaches should consider Bitcoin’s evolving risk characteristics and increasing integration with broader financial markets.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".