Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Quantifying Crypto Portfolio Risk: A Simulation-Based Framework Integrating Volatility, Hedging, Contagion, and Monte Carlo Modeling

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A four-module simulation framework, calibrated on 2020-2024 BTC/ETH/USDT data, aims to quantify crypto portfolio risk across stress, hedging, contagion, and stochastic scenarios.

desk verdict A clear but entirely textbook framework whose central empirical-validation claim is unsupported; useful as a tutorial, not as a research contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08915 v1 pith:BOPWSMDS submitted 2025-07-11 q-fin.RM math.PR

Kiarash Firouzi This is my paper
classification q-fin.RMmath.PR MSC 91G6060G9991B30
keywords cryptoportfolioriskMonteCarlosimulationvolatilitystresstestingstablecoinhedgingcontagionmodelinggeometricBrownianmotionValue-at-RiskExpectedShortfall
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a single modular simulation framework can capture the main risk dimensions of a cryptocurrency portfolio—market volatility, hedging via stablecoins, systemic contagion, and probabilistic price paths—and that this framework is practically usable because it calibrates its modules to real 2020-2024 data for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tether. A sympathetic reader would care because conventional risk models built on normality and centralized markets are widely considered inadequate for crypto, and a working modular toolkit would give traders, regulators, and risk officers a common way to stress and compare portfolios. The central claim is not that the modules are individually new, but that integrating them into one calibrated, empirically validated pipeline is a useful step toward crypto-native risk management.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modular simulation pipeline itself, whose four modules are stitched together by standard mathematical-finance formulas. The volatility module uses the linear shock prescription $r_{\text{shock}} = (1-\delta) r$ and $\Sigma_{\text{shock}} = (1+\delta) \Sigma$; the hedging module uses the linear scaling $\mu_h = (1-w_s)\mu_p$ and $\sigma_h = (1-w_s)\sigma_p$ under a zero-correlation stablecoin assumption; the contagion module propagates a shock vector through the rolling correlation matrix $\Delta = R\varepsilon$; and the Monte Carlo module discretizes geometric Brownian motion $S_{t+1} = S_t \exp\big((\mu - \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma^2)\Delta t + \sigma\sqrt{\Delta t}\, Z_{t}\big)$. The framework's practical force comes from calibrating these formulas to observable rolling-window statistics, so that the outputs—stress curves, hedging trade-offs, contagion heatmaps, and terminal price distributions—are presented as data-driven rather than textbook illustrations.

What would settle it

Compare the Monte Carlo module's predictions to realized BTC outcomes over many 30-day windows in 2020-2024: if actual terminal prices fall outside the simulated 95% interval more than 5% of the time, or if the realized frequency of losses is materially above the simulated 17%, the GBM assumption is falsified. A quicker check is a Jarque-Bera test on daily log-returns, which would reject normality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a four-module architecture for crypto portfolio risk: a volatility stress module that perturbs the historical covariance matrix by a factor $\delta$ to compute shocked return and volatility; a stablecoin hedging module that reallocates weight $w_s$ to a near-risk-free stablecoin to trace the volatility/return trade-off; a contagion module that propagates an exogenous shock through the rolling correlation matrix $\Delta = R\varepsilon$ (or an adjacency matrix for network effects); and a Monte Carlo module that simulates geometric Brownian motion paths, from which it derives expected terminal value, Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and loss probability. Applied to 2020-2024 daily BTC, ETH, and USDT log-returns, the modules produce a 30% stress test, a 30% USDT hedging comparison, a 20% BTC crash contagion heatmap, and 2,000 simulated BTC paths with a 95% confidence interval of roughly $\$28{,}500$ to $\$45{,}200$ and a loss probability near 17%. The paper reads these outputs as empirical validation of the framework's capacity to measure and illustrate portfolio risk in both stochastic and deterministic stress situations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Monte Carlo module's geometric Brownian motion with constant drift, constant volatility, and normally distributed shocks is a fair description of daily crypto returns; the paper's own conclusion admits this ignores the fat tails and volatility clustering that characterize Bitcoin and Ethereum, so the simulated loss probability and confidence interval stand or fall on that premise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 30% volatility shock to a 50/50 BTC–ETH portfolio yields concrete stressed numbers (shocked return, volatility, 30-day value), giving risk managers a simple template for Basel-style scenario analysis.
  • Allocating 30% of capital to USDT lowers both expected return and volatility proportionally, quantifying the stablecoin hedge as a volatility dampener rather than a complete shield.
  • A 20% BTC crash propagates proportional shocks to ETH and USDT through the rolling correlation snapshot, showing how systemic vulnerability can be mapped and monitored.
  • Simulating 2,000 GBM paths over 30 days produces a 95% confidence interval and a ~17% loss probability for BTC, which the paper offers as a forward-looking planning tool for funds setting margin and liquidation thresholds.
  • Because the modules are calibrated with rolling 90-day windows, the framework adapts to regime shifts and can be re-run on any asset set, supporting dynamic rebalancing and regulatory stress-testing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the 17% loss probability is arguably an artifact of the Gaussian GBM assumption; replacing the noise term with a Student-t or GARCH innovation would likely raise the tail probability, giving a quick test of how much of the risk estimate is assumption-driven.
  • Beyond the paper, the linear contagion map $\Delta = R\varepsilon$ is a one-shot propagation; iterating it or applying the threshold function $\phi$ could model cascading failures, which is the direction the paper's own SIR-inspired citations point toward.
  • Beyond the paper, the framework's validation on only three assets means the empirical support is suggestive; applying the same modules to a broader token set (e.g., DeFi and cross-chain assets) would reveal whether the contagion and hedging modules generalize.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a modular simulation framework for cryptocurrency portfolio risk, comprising four components: volatility stress testing, stablecoin hedging, contagion modeling, and Monte Carlo simulation. Sections 3.1-3.5 derive the corresponding formulas (Eqs. 3.1-3.12), Section 4 applies them to daily BTC, ETH, and USDT returns from January 2020 to January 2024, and Section 5 discusses practical implications. The abstract and Section 4 claim that the framework's robustness and practical relevance are demonstrated by empirical validation, and the contribution bullet in Section 1 explicitly promises backtesting against historical crashes.

Significance. Conditional on a proper validation, the modular architecture and the accompanying MATLAB code would provide a useful pedagogical and practical toolkit for crypto risk analysis. The mathematical core is mostly standard (mean-variance portfolio theory, linear correlation contagion, geometric Brownian motion), but the presentation is clear and the code is included, which supports reproducibility. However, the load-bearing empirical validation claim is not supported: Section 4 reports model outputs generated from parameters fitted to the same 2020-2024 sample, with no comparison to realized outcomes, no out-of-sample exercise, and no backtest despite the promise in Section 1. Section 6 concedes that the Monte Carlo module ignores tail risk and volatility clustering, which Table 1 shows are present in the data. As it stands, the paper's contribution is primarily an illustrative assembly of standard formulas rather than a validated risk framework.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 and Section 1 (contribution bullet)] The paper promises backtesting against historical market crashes and volatility regimes, and Section 4 concludes that 'all of these empirical findings support the framework's capacity to measure and illustrate the risk of cryptocurrency portfolios.' However, Section 4 contains no backtest: the stress test applies a 30% shock to the full-sample covariance (Eqs. 3.3-3.6), the hedging exercise applies Eqs. 3.8-3.9 with w_s=0.3, the contagion exercise uses a single correlation snapshot with Eq. 3.10, and the Monte Carlo exercise uses full-sample mean and volatility (Eq. 3.12). None of these outputs is compared with realized prices, a benchmark, or an out-of-sample period; there is no hit-rate or coverage check for the reported 95% confidence interval and 17% loss probability. The validation claim is therefore unsupported.
  2. [Section 4; Eqs. 3.10-3.12] The empirical outputs are direct functions of parameters estimated from the same 2020-2024 dataset used for 'validation.' The Monte Carlo 95% interval and loss probability are computed from the full-sample mean and standard deviation of BTC returns, and the stress and contagion outputs are computed from the full-sample (or end-of-sample) covariance and correlation matrices. Re-running the modules on the same sample cannot by itself demonstrate predictive or stress-testing capacity because any internally consistent calculation would reproduce the calibration data. The paper needs at least one out-of-sample or realized-outcome comparison to break this circularity.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (3.7)] The stress-test terminal value uses deterministic compounding with expected return, V_T = V0 (1 + mu_shock)^T, which ignores the variance of the portfolio and the distribution of possible outcomes. This is not a stress-test metric in the sense of Basel-type exercises (e.g., stressed VaR or expected shortfall), and it cannot be compared with a realized 30-day portfolio value without a distributional statement. The '30-day value' reported in Section 4 is therefore of limited empirical content.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Section 4 (Contagion)] The contagion module is advertised as network-based and defines a threshold function phi(x), but the empirical exercise uses only the linear propagation Delta = R epsilon from Eq. (3.10) with a single 90-day correlation snapshot; the threshold theta and the adjacency matrix A are not used. The module therefore does not simulate cascading or nonlinear contagion, and Section 6's own caveat that linear correlation may underestimate systemic exposure applies directly to the reported 'contagion effects.'
  5. [Section 6 and Table 1] The paper's own conclusion states that the Monte Carlo simulations 'ignore tail risk and volatility clustering,' and Table 1 reports excess kurtosis of 4.12 for BTC and 3.89 for ETH. Under the Gaussian assumption of Eq. (3.12), the simulated 95% interval and 17% loss probability are derived from a distribution whose tails are lighter than those of the empirical returns. Without a coverage test against realized 30-day returns or a distributional adjustment, these probability statements are not reliable risk measures; the acknowledgement in Section 6 does not resolve this because the reported validation still relies on those outputs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.1] The text contains 'Monta Carlo trajectory analysis' instead of 'Monte Carlo trajectory analysis.'
  2. [Sections 4 and 5.1] The 95% confidence interval for the terminal BTC price is reported as [$28,500, $45,200] in Section 4 and as [$28,700, $45,300] in Section 5.1; these numbers should be reconciled.
  3. [Section 5.1] The parenthetical '[?]' appears after 'Rolling correlations are better for contagion modeling than static ones'; a proper citation is needed.
  4. [Table 1] The fourth column is labeled 'Kurtosis,' but the text refers to 'excess kurtosis'; the table should clarify whether the entries are excess kurtosis or raw kurtosis, since normal distributions have kurtosis 3.
  5. [Appendix A] The MATLAB code begins with a comment stating that it 'compares data from 1960 to 2008 and makes predictions for 2024,' which is inconsistent with the 2020-2024 sample described in the paper and appears to be leftover text that should be corrected.
  6. [Figure 3] Figure 3 is described as a 'contagion heatmap,' but the manuscript does not show the heatmap with a color scale or numerical impact values; a table or annotated figure would make the output interpretable.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's 'empirical validation' is self-referential: the Monte Carlo interval and loss probability are direct outputs of full-sample mean/volatility, and the stress/contagion 'consistency' with history restates the fitted covariance/correlation inputs rather than testing against realized outcomes.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 'Monte Carlo Simulation'; Section 5.1; Eqs. (3.11)-(3.12)]
    "Monte Carlo Simulation. We simulate 2,000 BTC price paths over 30 days under log-normal dynamics. ... The 95 % confidence intervalis [$28,500, $45,200], with a loss probability near 17 %. ... For 30 days, 2,000 stochastic paths are simulated using the empirical mean and daily return volatility. The findings ... are not taken at random from textbook models. They guarantee high fidelity by reflecting the real drift and volatility of Bitcoin over a four-year period."

    The simulated terminal distribution is generated by Eq. (3.12) with drift μ_i and volatility σ_i estimated from the same 2020-2024 sample (Section 4: 'A rolling 90-day window is used to estimate time-varying means, covariance matrices, and correlations'; Appendix uses mean(R(:,1)) and std(R(:,1)) over the full sample). The reported 95% interval and 17% loss probability are therefore analytic functions of those fitted moments. The paper then presents these same outputs as demonstrating 'high fidelity' because they 'reflect' the empirical drift and volatility. That is a fitted input renamed as a prediction: no realized out-of-sample BTC price path, no hit-rate or coverage check, and no historical crash reconstruction is used to validate the interval.

  2. self definitional [Section 5.1; Eqs. (3.3)-(3.7)]
    "For example, the empirical covariance matrix of Bitcoin and Ethereum is subjected to a 30% shock in the volatility stress test. The metrics of the resulting portfolio, such as the 30-day compounded gain of 2.9%, the volatility of 6.28%, and the shocked return of 0.0945%, closely resemble real-world reactions to periods of price volatility, like the sell-off in March 2020 and the liquidity crunch in 2022. The sensitivity of our model to actual dynamics is confirmed by this consistency."

    Eqs. (3.5)-(3.6) define the post-shock return and volatility as μ_shock=(1-δ)μ_p and σ_shock=√(1+δ)σ_p, and Eq. (3.7) defines the 30-day value as V_T=V0(1+μ_shock)^T. All three reported 'resulting portfolio metrics' (0.0945%, 6.28%, 2.9%) are deterministic algebraic functions of the empirical μ and Σ that were used as inputs; δ=0.3 is the only added parameter. Calling this consistency with March 2020 or 2022 'confirmed' is circular, because no realized returns from those episodes are compared with the model outputs. The model reproduces the input moments by construction, and the claimed validation is merely an assertion of resemblance.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 'Contagion Modeling'; Eq. (3.10)]
    "The May 2021 crash of Bitcoin caused ETH's rolling correlation to spike, which in turn caused a nearly proportionate decline. This is reflected in our model, which calculates contagion propagation through: Impacti = ρi,BT C × ∆BT C where ρ is the correlation from the last 90 days."

    Eq. (3.10) defines contagion as Δ=Rε, a linear projection using the empirical correlation matrix. The claimed confirmation is that during May 2021 the rolling BTC-ETH correlation was high, so the model produces a 'nearly proportionate' ETH decline. But that is exactly what the input correlation encodes; the output is the input multiplied by the shock. No realized ETH return during May 2021 is compared to the model's Δ, and no out-of-sample spillover test is performed. The 'reflection' of the historical crash is therefore a tautological consequence of computing contagion from the same correlation that summarizes that crash.

full rationale

The paper's mathematical scaffolding (Markowitz formulas, GBM discretization, linear correlation propagation) is internally consistent, and there are no self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The circularity is concentrated in the empirical-validation claim. The abstract and contribution list promise backtesting against historical crashes and empirical validation on 2020-2024 data, but Section 4 reports only model outputs: a shocked covariance, a scaled mean-variance hedge, a correlation-weighted shock, and GBM paths driven by full-sample mean/volatility. None of these exercises is compared with realized out-of-sample prices or historical drawdowns, so 'all of these empirical findings support the framework' is a restatement of the fitted inputs. Section 6's concession that the Monte Carlo module 'ignore[s] tail risk and volatility clustering' further shows the 'validation' cannot be externally falsified. Because the central claimed contribution—empirical validity—reduces by construction to the fitted moments, but the modules themselves remain well-defined tools, a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's outputs are direct functions of parameters estimated from the same dataset, and the main modeling assumptions, GBM normality, linear contagion, and a zero-risk stablecoin, are acknowledged in Section 6 as limitations. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Shock factor delta = 0.3 in the empirical stress test; no calibration shown
    Chosen to create a 30% stress scenario; the shocked return, volatility, and 30-day value are direct functions of it.
  • Stablecoin weight ws = 0.3
    Chosen for the hedging scenario; hedged return and volatility scale with (1-ws).
  • Historical mean and volatility = BTC mean about 0.12% per day, volatility about 4.5%; ETH about 0.15% and 5.2%
    Estimated from the same 2020-2024 data; the Monte Carlo CI and loss probability are computed from these values, so they are not independent predictions.
  • Covariance and correlation matrices = Rolling 90-day estimates; December 2023 snapshot used for contagion
    The chosen rolling window drives the stress and contagion outputs; contagion impacts are direct linear functions of these correlations.
  • Monte Carlo sample size M and horizon T = M = 2,000, T = 30 days
    Set by hand for computational convenience; the precision of the simulated quantiles depends on these choices.
  • Threshold theta for contagion = Not specified
    Stated to be calibrated to historical events, but no value or procedure is given, and the threshold function is not used in the empirical section.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Markowitz mean-variance portfolio formulas apply to crypto assets.
    Section 3.1, Eqs 3.1-3.2; standard portfolio theory.
  • domain assumption The stablecoin has zero drift, negligible variance, and zero correlation with crypto assets.
    Section 3.3 before Eqs 3.8-3.9; this makes the hedge a pure linear rescaling. It can be violated in stress periods such as the 2022 Terra-LUNA depeg.
  • domain assumption Crypto returns follow geometric Brownian motion with constant volatility and normal shocks.
    Section 3.5, Eq 3.11; the paper itself lists ignoring tail risk and volatility clustering as a limitation in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Contagion propagates linearly through a static correlation matrix.
    Section 3.4, Eq 3.10; no SIR dynamics or nonlinear amplification is implemented despite the stated inspiration.
  • domain assumption The 2020-2024 BTC, ETH, and USDT sample is representative for both calibration and validation.
    Section 4; the same sample supplies parameters and the confirmatory evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper Portfolio value can be computed by deterministic compounding with expected return.
    Eq 3.7 and Fig 1 use (1+mu_shock)^T; this ignores volatility drag and is not a proper stochastic forecast.
  • standard math Cholesky decomposition produces valid correlated Gaussian paths.
    Section 3.5, multivariate extension; standard linear algebra, but only valid for Gaussian dependence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying Crypto Portfolio Risk: A Simulation-Based Framework Integrating Volatility, Hedging, Contagion, and Monte Carlo Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOPWSMDS

@misc{pith2026250708915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying Crypto Portfolio Risk: A Simulation-Based Framework Integrating Volatility, Hedging, Contagion, and Monte Carlo Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOPWSMDS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08915}
}
read the original abstract

Extreme volatility, nonlinear dependencies, and systemic fragility are characteristics of cryptocurrency markets. The assumptions of normality and centralized control in traditional financial risk models frequently cause them to miss these changes. Four components-volatility stress testing, stablecoin hedging, contagion modeling, and Monte Carlo simulation-are integrated into this paper's modular simulation framework for crypto portfolio risk analysis. Every module is based on mathematical finance theory, which includes stochastic price path generation, correlation-based contagion propagation, and mean-variance optimization. The robustness and practical relevance of the framework are demonstrated through empirical validation utilizing 2020-2024 USDT, ETH, and BTC data.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tail r isk measurement in crypto-asset markets

    Daniel Felix Ahelegbey, Paolo Giudici, and Fatemeh Mojtahedi. Tail r isk measurement in crypto-asset markets. International Review of Finan- cial Analysis, 73:101604, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020. 101604

    work page doi:10.1016/j.irfa.2020 2021

  2. [2]

    Developing a stress testing frame- work based on market risk models

    Carol Alexander and Elizabeth Sheedy. Developing a stress testing frame- work based on market risk models. Journal of Banking & Finance , 32(10):2220–2236, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007. 12.041

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbank 2008

  3. [3]

    Game-based modeling of delayed r isk contagion in cryptocurrency exchanges

    Mauro Aliano and Stefania Ragni. Game-based modeling of delayed r isk contagion in cryptocurrency exchanges. Annals of Operations Research , pages 1–23, 2025. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-025-06557-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10479-025-06557-0 2025

  4. [4]

    A systematic literaturereview of volatility and risk management on cryptocurrency investment: A method- ological point of view

    Jos´ e Almeida and Tiago Cruz Gon¸ calves. A systematic literaturereview of volatility and risk management on cryptocurrency investment: A method- ological point of view. Risks, 10(5):107, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10. 3390/risks10050107

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Modelling and forecasting the volatility of cryptocurrencies: A Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 28 REFERENCES comparison of nonlinear garch-type models

    Huthaifa Alqaralleh, Alaa Adden Abuhommous, Ahmad Alsaraireh, et al. Modelling and forecasting the volatility of cryptocurrencies: A Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 28 REFERENCES comparison of nonlinear garch-type models. International Journal of Financial Research, 11(4):346–356, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.5430/ ijfr.v11n4p346

    work page 2021

  6. [7]

    Review of blockchain technology vulnerabilit ies and blockchain-system attacks

    A Averin and O Averina. Review of blockchain technology vulnerabilit ies and blockchain-system attacks. In 2019 International Multi-Conference on Industrial Engineering and Modern Technologies (FarEastCon), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2019. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FarEastCon.2019. 8934243

    work page doi:10.1109/fareastcon.2019 2019

  7. [8]

    The inefficiency of bitcoin revisited: A dynamic approach

    Aurelio F Bariviera. The inefficiency of bitcoin revisited: A dynamic approach. Economics Letters, 161:1–4, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.econlet.2017.09.013

    work page 2017

  8. [9]

    The bitcoin gold correlation puzzle.Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 25:103–110, 2018

    Dirk G Baur and Linh Hoang. The bitcoin gold correlation puzzle.Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 25:103–110, 2018. URL: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2021.100561

    arXiv 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [10]

    Oxford uni- versity press, 2019

    Tomas Bj¨ ork.Arbitrage theory in continuous time (4th edn) . Oxford uni- versity press, 2019. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198851615. 001.0001

    2019

  2. [11]

    Vine copu la- based dependence and portfolio value-at-risk analysis of the cryp tocur- rency market

    Gideon Boako, Aviral Kumar Tiwari, and David Roubaud. Vine copu la- based dependence and portfolio value-at-risk analysis of the cryp tocur- rency market. International Economics, 158:77–90, 2019. URL: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2019.03.002

    2019 doi

  3. [12]

    Beyond risk parity–a machine learning-based hierarchi- cal risk parity approach on cryptocurrencies

    Tobias Burggraf. Beyond risk parity–a machine learning-based hierarchi- cal risk parity approach on cryptocurrencies. Finance Research Letters, 38:101523, 2021. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101523. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template REFERENCES 29

    2021

  4. [13]

    Risk measurement of cryptocurrencies usin g value at risk and expected shortfall

    Thi Hong Van Cao. Risk measurement of cryptocurrencies usin g value at risk and expected shortfall. Master’s Thesis, Lund University , 2022. URL: https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/9084496

    2022

  5. [14]

    Systemic risk, contagion, and finan- cial networks: A survey

    Matteo Chinazzi and Giorgio Fagiolo. Systemic risk, contagion, and finan- cial networks: A survey. Contagion, and Financial Networks: A Survey (June 3, 2015) , 2015. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2243504

    2015 doi

  6. [15]

    An approach to predict and forecast the price of constituents and index of cryptocurrency using machine learning

    Reaz Chowdhury, M Arifur Rahman, M Sohel Rahman, and MRC Mahdy. An approach to predict and forecast the price of constituents and index of cryptocurrency using machine learning. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 551:124569, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1...

    2020

  7. [16]

    Cryptocurrency market reactions to regulatory news

    Shaen Corbet, Brian Lucey, and Larisa Yarovaya. Cryptocurrency market reactions to regulatory news. Finance Research Letters , 29:1–7, 2019. URL: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/ 8228.html

    2019

  8. [17]

    Intelligent design: stablecoins (in) stability and collateral during mar ket turbulence

    Riccardo De Blasis, Luca Galati, Alexander Webb, and Robert I We bb. Intelligent design: stablecoins (in) stability and collateral during mar ket turbulence. Financial Innovation , 9(1):85, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s40854-023-00492-4

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    Blockchain technology and crypto-assets market analysis: vulner abilities and risk assessment

    Jean-Guillaume Dumas, Sonia Jimenez-Garc` es, Florentina S, oiman, et al. Blockchain technology and crypto-assets market analysis: vulner abilities and risk assessment. In 12th International Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics, volume 1, pages 30–37, 2021. UR...

    2021

  10. [19]

    Sta- blecoin devaluation risk

    Barry Eichengreen, My T Nguyen, and Ganesh Viswanath-Natr aj. Sta- blecoin devaluation risk. The European Journal of Finance , pages 1–28,

  11. [20]

    Defi risks and regulation

    Bank for International Settlements. Defi risks and regulation . BIS Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 30 REFERENCES Bulletin, 2023. URL: https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r qt2112b.pdf

    2021

  12. [21]

    The global political economy of digital technology

    Tyler Girard. The global political economy of digital technology. 180 Day Access Global Political Economy , page 405, 2024. URL: http://dx. doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780192847553.003.0017

    2024

  13. [22]

    Regulation of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technolo- gies

    Rosario Girasa. Regulation of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technolo- gies. National and International Perspectives. Suiza: Palgrave Macmillan,

  14. [23]

    Introduction to monte carlo simulation

    Robert L Harrison. Introduction to monte carlo simulation. In AIP con- ference proceedings, volume 1204, page 17, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.1063/1.3295638

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    International business and decen- tralized finance

    Campbell R Harvey and Daniel Rabetti. International business and decen- tralized finance. Journal of international business studies , 55(7):840–863,

  16. [25]

    Is bitco in a safe haven for us equity market?–a comparison with gold and the do llar

    Jiawen Hu, Ziying Zhang, Yubo Gao, and Shengduo Chen. Is bitco in a safe haven for us equity market?–a comparison with gold and the do llar. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences , 3:555–563,

  17. [26]

    Contagion!: Systemic Risk in Financial Networks , volume 42

    Thomas R Hurd et al. Contagion!: Systemic Risk in Financial Networks , volume 42. Springer, 2016. URL: https://link.springer.com/book/10. 1007/978-3-319-33930-6

    2016

  18. [27]

    Modelling the social dynamics of contagion and discov- ery using dynamical processes on complex networks

    Iacopo Iacopini. Modelling the social dynamics of contagion and discov- ery using dynamical processes on complex networks. PhD thesis, Queen Mary University of London., 2021. URL:https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/ handle/123456789/70668

    2021

  19. [28]

    Volatility co-movement between bitcoin a nd ether

    Paraskevi Katsiampa. Volatility co-movement between bitcoin a nd ether. Finance Research Letters , 30:221–227, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.frl.2018.10.005. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template REFERENCES 31

    2019

  20. [29]

    Algorithmic stablecoins: Mechanisms, risks, and le ssons from the fall of terrausd

    David Krause. Algorithmic stablecoins: Mechanisms, risks, and le ssons from the fall of terrausd. Risks, and Lessons from the Fall of Ter- raUSD (January 11, 2025) , 2025. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 5092827

    2025 doi

  21. [30]

    Second order approxi- mation for the customer time in queue distribution under the fifo ser vice discipline

    /suppress Lukasz Kruk, John Lehoczky, and Steven Shreve. Second order approxi- mation for the customer time in queue distribution under the fifo ser vice discipline. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sk/suppress lodowska, sectio AI– Informatica, 1(1), 2003. URL: https://doi.or...

    2003 doi

  22. [31]

    Common risk factors in cryp - tocurrency

    Yukun Liu, Aleh Tsyvinski, and Xi Wu. Common risk factors in cryp - tocurrency. NBER Working Paper No. 25882 , 2019. URL: https://www. nber.org/system/files/working papers/w25882/w25882.pdf

    2019

  23. [32]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash s ystem

    Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash s ystem. White Paper, 2008. URL: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    2008

  24. [33]

    Critical appraisal of the basel fundamenta l review of the trading book regulations

    Jorg Orgeldinger. Critical appraisal of the basel fundamenta l review of the trading book regulations. Journal of Risk Management in Finan- cial Institutions, 10(3):257–275, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.69554/ TYFH2887

    2017

  25. [34]

    Crypto-native cre dit score: Between financial inclusion and predatory lending

    Nizan Geslevich Packin and Yafit Lev-Aretz. Crypto-native cre dit score: Between financial inclusion and predatory lending. Cardozo L. Rev. , 45:845, 2023. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4354218

    2023

  26. [35]

    Extreme Value Behavior in Cryptocurrency Market

    Ghazia Khoula Qureshi. Extreme Value Behavior in Cryptocurrency Market. PhD thesis, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY, 2023. URL: https://cust. edu.pk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Ghazia-Khoula-Qureshi- Mngt-Sc- Dissertation.pdf

    2023

  27. [36]

    Markowitz revisited: Mean-variance models infinancial portfolio analysis

    Marc C Steinbach. Markowitz revisited: Mean-variance models infinancial portfolio analysis. SIAM review, 43(1):31–85, 2001. URL: https://doi. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 32 REFERENCES org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2019.105888

    2001

  28. [37]

    Dynamic volatility modelling of bitcoin using time-varying transition probability markov-switching garch model

    Chia-Yen Tan, You-Beng Koh, Kok-Haur Ng, and Kooi-Huat Ng. Dynamic volatility modelling of bitcoin using time-varying transition probability markov-switching garch model. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance , 56:101377, 2021. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.n...

    2021

  29. [38]

    Value-at- risk and expected shortfall in cryptocurrencies’ portfolio: A vine copula–based approach

    Carlos Truc´ ıos, Aviral K Tiwari, and Faisal Alqahtani. Value-at- risk and expected shortfall in cryptocurrencies’ portfolio: A vine copula–based approach. Applied Economics, 52(24):2580–2593, 2020. URL: http://dx. doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3441892

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    On multivariate contribution measures of systemic risk with applications in cryptocurrency market

    Limin Wen, Junxue Li, Tong Pu, and Yiying Zhang. On multivariate contribution measures of systemic risk with applications in cryptocurrency market. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences , pages 1–28, 2025. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026996482500004X

    2025 doi

  31. [2018]

    URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21812-5

    doi

  32. [2023]

    URL: https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/3/2022834

    doi

  33. [2024]

    URL: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00705-7

    doi

  34. [2025]

    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4460515

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.