MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406693501 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18020048

Modeling and Forecasting the Probability of Crypto-Exchange Closures: A Forecast Combination Approach

2025· article· en· W4406693501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Said Magomedov, Dean Fantazzini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStatistical and Computational Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of cryptocurrency exchanges has surged in recent years, accompanied by the proliferation of new digital platforms and tokens. However, the issue of credit risk and the reliability of crypto exchanges remain critical, highlighting the need for indicators to assess the safety of investing through these platforms. This study examines a unique, hand-collected dataset of 228 cryptocurrency exchanges operating between April 2011 and May 2024. Using various machine learning algorithms, we identify the key factors contributing to exchange shutdowns, with trading volume, exchange lifespan, and cybersecurity scores emerging as the most significant predictors. Since individual machine learning models often capture distinct data characteristics and exhibit varying error patterns, we employ a forecast combination approach by aggregating multiple predictive distributions. Specifically, we evaluate several specifications of the generalized linear pool (GLP), beta-transformed linear pool (BLP), and beta-mixture combination (BMC). Our findings reveal that the beta-transformed linear pool and the beta-mixture combination achieve the best performances, improving forecast accuracy by approximately 4.1% based on a robust H-measure, which effectively addresses the challenges of misclassification in imbalanced datasets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicStatistical and Computational ModelingFrench-language works237,207