Unpacking Alpha in Innovation-Driven ETFs: A Comparative Study of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Funds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the performance and portfolio role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Blockchain exchange-traded funds (ETFs) based on monthly returns from 2010 to 2025. The findings show that both AI and Blockchain ETFs generate positive alpha and high standalone returns but also display considerable drawdown risk. Their weak correlations with each other and with broad indices highlight diversification benefits, particularly when combined with U.S. benchmarks. Portfolio optimization reveals that Global Minimum Variance (GMV) and Tangency portfolios ascribe lower weights to these ETFs, while Risk Parity portfolios have a more balanced exposure, helping to diversify risks. Efficient frontier analysis highlights that the inclusion of AI and Blockchain ETFs improves the attainable risk–return profiles, even if they are not a dominant allocation. The findings stress that AI and Blockchain ETFs are suitable as satellite holdings. When applied judiciously, they offer the potential to improve diversification and risk-adjusted performance; however, concentrated bets subject investors to undue downside risks. Positioning portfolios around broad-based indices and overlaying modest thematic tilts emerges as a prudent approach to capturing innovation-driven upsides without compromising long-term portfolio resilience.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".