Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the first rigorous empirical investigation into a fundamental question of cryptocurrency valuation: Are cryptocurrency prices in line with the prices of fundamental assets? To answer this, we analyze the nine largest cryptocurrencies by market capitalization—Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), Binance Coin (BNB), Ripple (XRP), Cardano (ADA), Litecoin (LTC), Tron (TRX), and the stablecoin DAI—against a suite of traditional benchmarks, including major fiat currencies (EUR, CAD, JPY), gold, and the S&P500 index. Our dataset spans from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2025, with start dates varying for newer cryptocurrencies to ensure robust time series analysis. Guided by the asset pricing theory, we formulate a martingale test: if a cryptocurrency is priced in line with a fundamental numeraire asset, its price ratio relative to that numeraire must follow a martingale process. Our extensive empirical analysis reveals that the prices of major cryptocurrencies (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB) consistently reject the martingale hypothesis when traditional assets (currencies, gold, equities) serve as the numeraire, indicating a decoupling from fundamental valuation anchors. Conversely, when Bitcoin or Ethereum itself is used as the numeraire, most smaller cryptocurrencies are priced in line with these crypto benchmarks, suggesting an internal valuation ecosystem that operates independently of traditional finance.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".