MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416228277 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18110642

Corporate Bitcoin Holdings: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Sectoral Risk, Regulatory Influence, and Decentralized Governance

2025· article· en· W4416228277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amirreza Kazemikhasragh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceTransaction costCryptocurrencyMarket liquidityDatabase transactionVolatility (finance)Financial servicesFinancial regulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of Bitcoin into corporate treasuries constitutes a critical strategic choice, motivated by its capacity to bolster liquidity and serve as an inflation hedge, while simultaneously being encumbered by pronounced financial volatility and regulatory ambiguity. This investigation examines sectoral variations in Bitcoin adoption, with particular attention to the manner in which financial risks, regulatory structures, and decentralized governance mechanisms shape corporate conduct across the technology, cryptocurrency mining, retail, healthcare, and e-commerce sectors. Drawing on a cross-sectional dataset encompassing 102 publicly traded firms collectively holding 1,001,861 BTC, the analysis employs MAD-based volatility, Firth logistic regression incorporating a U.S. regulatory dummy to account for the BITCOIN Act of 2025, and heatmap visualization to evaluate risk profiles and adoption patterns. Results demonstrate marked sectoral disparities: the technology and mining sectors command predominant holdings yet confront heightened risk exposure, whereas retail and healthcare sectors proceed with greater caution, guided by considerations of cost-value efficiency and regulatory adherence. The U.S. regulatory dummy is significant, indicating the BITCOIN Act facilitates high Bitcoin adoption, while recent transactional activity is marginally significant. The heatmap accentuates the technology sector’s pre-eminence in aggregate Bitcoin reserves and illuminates the differential influence of regulatory frameworks in non-U.S. jurisdictions. Anchored in Institutional Theory, the Technology Acceptance Model, and Transaction Cost Economics, the study advances the field by quantifying sector-specific risks and visually representing regulatory impacts, thereby furnishing actionable insights for treasury risk management and regulatory policy formulation within a decentralized financial ecosystem.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207