Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Stochastic Dynamics of Ripple XRP for Cross-Border Settlement Optimization

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 regime-switching stochastic model of XRP predicts remittance settlement reliability better than geometric Brownian motion, and volatility feedback plus routing adjustments significantly raise remittance success rates.

desk verdict Standard SDE toolkit applied to XRP corridors, but the headline success-rate gain is circular and the parameters are inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11553 v1 pith:GJYOMTEK submitted 2025-07-13 physics.soc-ph math.PR

Kiarash Firouzi This is my paper
classification physics.soc-phmath.PR MSC 91G6060H3062P05
keywords XRPcross-bordersettlementregime-switchingmodeljump-diffusionprocessstochasticvolatilityremittancecorridoroptimizationreliabilityFXhedging
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

This paper tries to establish that XRP's role as a cross-border settlement asset can be modeled with a regime-switching stochastic framework, and that doing so improves remittance reliability predictions. It argues that plain geometric Brownian motion misses the volatility clustering, price jumps, and latent operational states that drive XRP, and that combining jump-diffusion dynamics, Heston-type stochastic volatility, and a two-regime Hidden Markov model fits the data better. On the USD/MXN corridor the regime-switching model reaches a 93.6 percent simulated settlement success rate versus 81.2 percent for GBM, with lower RMSE and AIC. A sympathetic reader would care because the framework turns regime awareness into an operational rule: flag corridors with high latency volatility, reroute through synthetic XRP-USDC hedges, and size liquidity buffers using an analytical reliability bound.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Theorem 3.1, the settlement reliability bound $S_t = P(L_t < L_{\max}) \ge \Phi\left(\frac{L_{\max} - L_0 - \alpha t}{\beta(R_t)\sqrt{t}}\right)$, where $L_t$ is corridor latency, $\alpha$ is its drift, $\beta(R_t)$ is its regime-dependent volatility, and $\Phi$ is the standard normal CDF. This bound converts latent market regimes into an operational signal: when the regime process $R_t$ moves to a high-volatility state, the bound drops and the corridor is flagged for rerouting or hedging. The supporting machinery is the four-layer SDE stack of jump-diffusion price dynamics, Heston stochastic variance, a two-state Hidden Markov regime process, and latency-liquidity processes, plus the XRP-USDC synthetic hedge portfolio $\Pi_t = w_X P_t + w_U U_t$ that minimizes variance.

What would settle it

Compute the settlement success rate on a corridor during an actual or simulated illiquidity event where $Q_t$ falls below $Q_{\min}$, and compare it with the Theorem 3.1 bound $\Phi((L_{\max}-L_0-\alpha t)/(\beta(R_t)\sqrt{t}))$. Any path with $L_t < L_{\max}$ but $Q_t < Q_{\min}$ falsifies the paper's identification of $S_t$ with $P(L_t < L_{\max})$, because that path fails settlement under the paper's own definition yet the bound counts it as a success.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that regime-aware, volatility-adaptive modeling of XRP materially outperforms static GBM in predicting settlement reliability. In the paper's simulations, the regime-switching Heston model produced RMSE 0.028, AIC 874, and a 93.6 percent settlement success rate on the USD/MXN corridor, against 0.048, 1275, and 81.2 percent for GBM. The paper also reports that synthetic XRP-USDC hedging improves the Sharpe ratio in volatile regimes and reduces tail losses. The theoretical anchor is Theorem 3.1, which gives a lower bound on settlement success probability as a function of latency drift, volatility, and time, under the assumption that corridor liquidity stays above a minimum threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reliability bound rests on the assumption that corridor liquidity stays above a minimum threshold almost surely; if liquidity can collapse in a stress regime, the settlement-success probabilities are optimistic exactly when routing decisions matter most.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Remittance providers can use the analytical bound to precompute which corridors fail first as latency volatility rises and reroute before failures occur.
  • In the paper's volatile-regime simulations, the XRP-USDC synthetic hedge raises the Sharpe ratio from -0.34 to 0.17 and cuts return volatility from 4.1 percent to 1.8 percent.
  • Corridor-specific calibration matters: EUR/NGN has frequent regime transitions and low liquidity depth, while JPY/KRW has stable pricing with intermittent latency spikes, so a single global model misprices risk.
  • Tail-risk metrics such as VaR and CVaR should be computed from the regime-switching model rather than from Gaussian assumptions, because the jump and volatility components change the loss distribution.
  • The regime model's predictive gain is largest in corridors with frequent transitions, which is where static GBM is most misleading.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If liquidity sufficiency fails during stress, the reliability bound becomes optimistic; a natural test is to condition simulated settlement paths on $Q_t$ crossing $Q_{\min}$ and compare observed success with the theorem's lower bound.
  • Because regime classification relies on historical returns and validator data, flash consensus failures may be detected too late for real-time rerouting; online filtering would be needed for production use.
  • Threshold-based jump tagging may undercount clustered jumps originating from a single event; replacing lognormal jumps with Hawkes-type intensities would likely raise tail-risk and failure estimates.
  • The framework's data dependence on RippleNet APIs and validator telemetry limits direct transfer to permissionless ledgers, a limitation the paper itself acknowledges.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a layered stochastic framework for modeling XRP as a cross-border settlement asset: jump-diffusion price dynamics, Heston stochastic volatility, HMM regime switching, and stochastic latency/liquidity processes. It states Theorem 3.1 giving a lower bound on settlement success probability and reports Monte Carlo results on USD/MXN, EUR/NGN, and JPY/KRW corridors, claiming that regime-aware routing and XRP-USDC hedging significantly improve remittance success rates and tail-risk metrics. The manuscript also includes a MATLAB appendix implementing the simulation pipeline.

Significance. The modeling ingredients are standard, and the theoretical bound in Theorem 3.1 is elementary; the potential contribution lies in combining these ingredients for corridor-level remittance optimization and in the claimed empirical validation. The authors are candid about several limitations, including the liquidity-sufficiency assumption, jump-parameter estimation difficulty, and regime-classification lag. However, the central empirical claim is currently supported only by simulations of the paper's own model, with hardcoded parameters and no held-out data, no uncertainty quantification, and no comparison to observed RippleNet settlement outcomes. As a validated empirical contribution, the paper's significance is therefore not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.2, Table 1; Section 4.6] The headline claim that "adding volatility feedback and routing adjustments significantly increases remittance success rates" is not supported by the evidence presented. The success rates and CVaR figures in Table 1 and the hedging metrics in Table 2 are Monte Carlo outputs of the fitted or hand-set model, not comparisons against held-out RippleNet outcomes. No confidence intervals, error bars, out-of-sample splits, or significance tests are reported. Without external validation, the improvement over GBM is a property of the simulation rather than an empirical finding.
  2. [Appendix, parameter block; Sections 3.7 and 4.2] The EM/MLE calibration promised in Sections 3.7 and 4.2 is not reflected in the appendix code. The HMM transition matrix Pi = [0.94,0.06;0.12,0.88], the Heston parameters theta = 3.2 and xi = 0.4, the regime volatility multipliers volMult = [1.0,2.2], the latency betas betaReg = [0.8,1.3], and the hedge weights wX = 0.65, wU = 0.35 are hardcoded constants. These constants are identical across all three corridors, so the corridor-specific statements in Section 4.5 cannot be traced to data.
  3. [Section 3.1; Section 4.1; Appendix] The jump-threshold definition is inconsistent: Section 3.1 calibrates jumps using a 5-standard-deviation threshold, Section 4.1 says thresholds above 4 sigma, and the appendix code uses 3*sigmaemp. Since the estimated jump intensity lambda and mean jump size kappa depend on this threshold, the reported jump parameters are not uniquely defined, and the price process used in the simulations is not uniquely specified.
  4. [Theorem 3.1; Section 3.4; Sections 4.6 and 5] Theorem 3.1 treats beta(R_t) as a constant in the normal CDF and drops the liquidity condition Q_t > Q_min after assuming it holds almost surely, while the appendix simulation checks Q(end) > Qmin pathwise. The reported success rates therefore do not actually rely on the theorem, and the almost-sure liquidity assumption is exactly what fails in stress regimes, as the authors themselves acknowledge in Sections 4.6 and 5. The bound is not validated as a reliability guarantee for the simulated corridors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (3.1)-(3.2)] The equation display for the solution to Eq. (3.1) is corrupted by LaTeX artifacts such as "/parenleft.alt3" and "/product.disp"; the formulas should be cleaned before submission.
  2. [Figure 3 and Appendix] Figure 3 is captioned "over 36 months," but the appendix code generates simulated regime paths with Nsim = 10,000 and no historical dates; the caption should clarify whether the displayed regimes are historical or simulated.
  3. [Data Availability Statement] The Data Availability Statement says all data are openly available from TradingView and Yahoo Finance, but Section 4.1 also relies on RippleNet API snapshots, validator logs, and Whale Alert; the statement should either provide access details for those sources or be revised.
  4. [Appendix, jump calibration] The code computes kappa_emp as the mean absolute log-return at detected jump times, which is not the same quantity as the jump-size parameter kappa in Eqs. (3.1)-(3.2); the relationship between the code variable and the model parameter should be clarified.
  5. [Table 2] The Sharpe ratios in Table 2 are computed without a stated risk-free rate or annualization convention; the authors should specify the convention used.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Headline success-rate and hedging results are Monte Carlo outputs of the model being validated; corridor claims come from a single hardcoded parameter set.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4 (St definition), Section 4.3, Table 1, Section 4.6]
    "Settlement success is defined as: St = P(Lt < Lmax ∧ Qt > Qmin) ... We simulated 10,000 paths for: • XRP price and volatility (regime-conditioned) • Latency Lt and liquidity Qt • Settlement success probability St using Theorem 1 ... The model outperformed static geometric Brownian motion in predicting settlement reliability in corridors with frequent transitions, like EUR/NGN and JPY/KRW, by enabling dynamic response to volatility shifts."

    The 'success rate' in Table 1 is not measured against observed settlements: the Appendix computes S(i) = double(L(i,end)<Lmax && Q(i,end)>Qmin) for each simulated path and averages it. The same St definition from Section 3.4 is thus both the object being predicted and the output of the simulator used as validation. The claim that the regime-switching model 'outperformed static geometric Brownian motion in predicting settlement reliability' compares synthetic paths of each model under the same thresholds, with no held-out RippleNet outcomes, error bars, or significance tests. The empirical conclusion therefore reduces by construction to the model's own simulated success definition.

  2. other [Appendix A code; Sections 4.2, 4.5]
    "theta = 3.2; xi = 0.4; volMult = [1.0,2.2]; betaReg = [0.8,1.3]; wX = 0.65; wU = 0.35; Pi = [0.94,0.06;0.12,0.88]"

    Section 4.2 promises 'EM algorithm for HMM transition matrix' and 'Corridor-specific latency thresholds Lmax, liquidity bounds Qmin,' and Section 4.5 reports distinct corridor behavior. Yet the Appendix, described as reflecting 'the core components of the empirical analysis section,' fixes one transition matrix, one Heston theta and xi, one volatility multiplier, one latency beta, and one hedge weight for all corridors. The corridor-specific success rates, Sharpe ratios, and regime frequencies are therefore generated by a single hand-set parameter vector, not by corridor data. Presenting these simulated outputs as empirical validation is circular: the predictions are the paper's own inputs rather than data-derived estimates.

full rationale

Theorem 3.1 itself is mathematically self-contained: conditional on the latency SDE and Gaussian increments, the CDF bound is a direct calculation and does not import its conclusion. The Heston/HMM/jump architecture is also coherent. The circularity sits in the validation layer. The abstract's central claim—'adding volatility feedback and routing adjustments significantly increases remittance success rates'—is supported only by Tables 1-2 and Fig. 3, which are Monte Carlo outputs of the same model (Appendix A). No held-out RippleNet settlement outcomes are shown, and Section 4.6's phrase 'validated against empirical RippleNet logs' is unsupported by any comparison table or test. The Appendix's hardcoded Pi, theta, xi, volMult, betaReg, wX, and wU undermine the promised EM/MLE and corridor-specific calibration, and the jump threshold changes from 5 sigma (Section 3.1) to 4 sigma (Section 4.1) to 3 sigma (Appendix), so lambda and kappa are not uniquely identified. The liquidity-sufficiency assumption Qt > Qmin almost surely (Section 3.4) is an explicitly acknowledged limitation (Sections 4.6 and 5) that makes the Theorem 3.1 bound optimistic in thin markets; it is a real caveat but is not itself a circular step. Because the mathematical theorem is independent while the headline empirical predictions reduce to the model's own simulated outputs, the appropriate circularity score is 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical or financial entities, but it depends on a large stack of fitted or hand-chosen parameters and modeling assumptions. The empirical validation section does not reduce this burden: success rates are outputs of simulations built on these parameters, so the ledger entries above are load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

free parameters (11)
  • drift mu and volatility sigma (XRP log returns) = Estimated by MLE in text; computed from sample mean/std in appendix code, numeric values not reported
    Used in all price and simulation equations; fitted to Yahoo/TradingView XRP/USD data.
  • Jump parameters lambda, kappa (mu_J, sigma_J assumed lognormal) = Not reported in text; appendix computes lambda as jump count / sample length and kappa as mean absolute jump return
    Jump intensity and mean jump size are fitted from threshold-based event tagging; the threshold itself changes across the paper.
  • Jump detection threshold = 5 sigma (Section 3.1), 4 sigma (Section 4.1), 3 sigma (Appendix)
    The choice determines which returns count as jumps, so lambda and kappa depend on an ad hoc threshold.
  • Heston long-run variance omega = Set to sigma_emp^2 in appendix
    Anchored to sample variance, so it is fitted rather than independently predicted.
  • Heston mean-reversion speed theta = 3.2 (appendix)
    Hand-chosen; no estimation or sensitivity analysis provided.
  • Heston vol-of-vol xi = 0.4 (appendix)
    Hand-chosen.
  • HMM transition matrix Pi = [0.94 0.06; 0.12 0.88] in appendix
    Text says EM estimation, but code hardcodes the matrix; estimated or assumed values drive regime frequencies and hedging results.
  • Regime-dependent volatility multipliers and latency volatilities = volMult=[1.0, 2.2]; betaReg=[0.8, 1.3]
    Hand-chosen multipliers amplify stable vs volatile states; these directly set the stress-level differences that the paper credits with improving model fit.
  • Latency and liquidity drift/volatility (alpha, gamma, delta) = alpha=0.05, gamma=0.03, delta=600
    Arbitrary constants used in simulation; no calibration described.
  • Thresholds and initial values Lmax, Qmin, L0, Q0 = Lmax=5, Qmin=50000, L0=2.5, Q0=75000
    Corridor-specific operational thresholds are assumed, not estimated; settlement success rates depend directly on them.
  • Hedge weights wX, wU = 0.65, 0.35
    Portfolio weights chosen by hand; Table 2 Sharpe ratios depend on them.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Itô's lemma and standard SDE solution for jump-diffusion processes
    Used in Section 3.1 equation (3.2); accepted background.
  • domain assumption XRP price follows Merton jump-diffusion with lognormally distributed jump sizes
    Section 3.1; the paper does not test this distributional assumption against alternatives like Hawkes or heavy tails (acknowledged in Section 4.6).
  • domain assumption Volatility follows Heston square-root process with Brownian motion Z independent of W
    Section 3.2; standard model, but its fit to XRP is not shown.
  • domain assumption A two-state hidden Markov regime process governs price, volatility, and latency parameters
    Section 3.3; the number of regimes is fixed at two and transition matrix is hardcoded in the appendix.
  • domain assumption Settlement success is determined only by terminal latency below Lmax and liquidity above Qmin
    Section 3.4; ignores path-dependent failures such as interim liquidity shortfalls.
  • domain assumption Liquidity is sufficient almost surely, Q_t > Qmin
    Section 3.4; the paper drops liquidity from the Theorem 3.1 bound and admits in Sections 4.6 and 5 that this can fail in thin markets.
  • ad hoc to paper Regime-dependent latency volatility beta(R_t) is constant over the settlement horizon in Theorem 3.1
    Proof of Theorem 3.1 treats beta(R_t) as fixed and writes L_t as normal; if regimes switch within [0,t], the distribution is a mixture, not the stated normal, so the probability expression is exact only under this hidden assumption.
  • domain assumption USDC price is constant in the hedging portfolio
    Section 3.6; reasonable for a stablecoin, but any USDC depeg would change the Sharpe ratios.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic Dynamics of Ripple XRP for Cross-Border Settlement Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJYOMTEK

@misc{pith2026250711553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic Dynamics of Ripple XRP for Cross-Border Settlement Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJYOMTEK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11553}
}
read the original abstract

The feasibility of XRP as a liquidity medium in cross-border transactions is assessed in this paper using a thorough stochastic framework. We use simulations of settlement latency, regime-switching volatility, and jump-diffusion models. The models are calibrated using historical data from public exchanges and RippleNet corridors, and they assess FX dynamics, liquidity depth, and tail risks in real-world scenarios. The behavior of XRP differs significantly from the conventional GBM assumptions, according to the results, and stochastic volatility with regime awareness provides a reliable path to corridor optimization. Our empirical validation shows that adding volatility feedback and routing adjustments significantly increases remittance success rates.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A multi-currency exchange and contracting platform

    Mr Tobias Adrian, Federico Grinberg, Mr Tommaso Mancini Grif- foli, Robert M Townsend, and Nicolas Zhang. A multi-currency exchange and contracting platform . International Monetary Fund, 2022. URL: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/11/04/A- Multi-Currency-Exchange-and-Contracting-Platform-525445

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets? Journal of International Financial Mar- kets, Institutions and Money , 54:177–189, 2018

    Dirk G Baur, KiHoon Hong, and Adrian D Lee. Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets? Journal of International Financial Mar- kets, Institutions and Money , 54:177–189, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.intfin.2017.12.004. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 26 REFERENCES

    work page doi:10.1016/j.int 2018

  3. [3]

    The quest for spe ed in payments

    Morten L Bech, Yuuki Shimizu, and Paul Wong. The quest for spe ed in payments. BIS quarterly review March , 2017. URL: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2931564

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    What explains remittance fees? Panel evidence

    Thorsten Beck, Mathilde Janfils, Kangni Kpodar, and Mr Kangni R Kpodar. What explains remittance fees? Panel evidence . International Monetary Fund, 2022. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4092613

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Stochastic volatility modeling

    Lorenzo Bergomi. Stochastic volatility modeling . Taylor & Francis, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1201/b19649

    work page doi:10.1201/b19649 2015

  6. [6]

    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

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Do Bit - coin and other cryptocurrencies jump together? The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance , 76:396–409, 2020

    Elie Bouri, David Roubaud, and Syed Jawad Hussain Shahzad. Do Bit - coin and other cryptocurrencies jump together? The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance , 76:396–409, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.qref.2019.09.003

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    AI-Powered Real-Time Analytics for Cro ss-Border Payment Systems

    Pushpalika Chatterjee. AI-Powered Real-Time Analytics for Cro ss-Border Payment Systems. Available at SSRN 5251235 , 2022. URL: https://dx. doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5251235

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5251235 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Transform analy sis and asset pricing for affine jump-diffusions

    Darrell Duffie, Jun Pan, and Kenneth Singleton. Transform analy sis and asset pricing for affine jump-diffusions. Econometrica, 68(6):1343–1376,

  2. [11]

    A new approach to the economic analysis of non sta- tionary time series and the business cycle

    James D Hamilton. A new approach to the economic analysis of non sta- tionary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, pages 357–384, 1989. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1912559. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template REFERENCES 27

    1989

  3. [12]

    A closed-form solution for options with stoch astic volatility with applications to bond and currency options

    Steven L Heston. A closed-form solution for options with stoch astic volatility with applications to bond and currency options. The review of financial studies , 6(2):327–343, 1993. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/ 6.2.327

    1993 doi

  4. [13]

    Hedging role of stablecoins

    Yosuke Kakinuma. Hedging role of stablecoins. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management , 30(1):19–28, 2023. URL: https:// doi.org/10.1002/isaf.1528

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    Modelling of blockchain based queuing theory implementing preemptive and non-preemptive algorit hms

    Meenakshi Kandpal, Niharika Keshari, Amrendra Singh Yadav, M ohit Yadav, and Rabindra Kumar Barik. Modelling of blockchain based queuing theory implementing preemptive and non-preemptive algorit hms. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Manage- ment, 15(6)...

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A compar ison of GARCH models

    Paraskevi Katsiampa. Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A compar ison of GARCH models. Economics letters , 158:3–6, 2017. URL: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.023

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    A jump-diffusion model for option pricing

    Steven G Kou. A jump-diffusion model for option pricing. Management science, 48(8):1086–1101, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48. 8.1086.166

    2002 doi

  8. [17]

    Securities and exchange commission v

    JD Larsen. Securities and exchange commission v. ripple labs, inc .-20 civ. 10832 (at)(sdny july 13, 2023). Intell. Prop. & Tech. LJ , 28:57,

    2023

  9. [18]

    Ripple Labs: Changing Cross-Border Payment s Forever

    Charles Lauzon. Ripple Labs: Changing Cross-Border Payment s Forever. Available at SSRN 5187042 , 2025. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 5187042

    2025 doi

  10. [19]

    Modelling the dynamics of cryptocurrency prices for risk h edg- ing: The case of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin

    Chekwube V Madichie, Franklin N Ngwu, Eze A Eze, and Olisaemeka D Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 28 REFERENCES Maduka. Modelling the dynamics of cryptocurrency prices for risk h edg- ing: The case of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin. Cogent Economics & Finance, 11(1):21968...

    2021

  11. [20]

    A formal appro ach for the analysis of the XRP ledger consensus protocol

    Lara Mauri, Stelvio Cimato, and Ernesto Damiani. A formal appro ach for the analysis of the XRP ledger consensus protocol. pages 52–6 3, 2020. URL: https://air.unimi.it/handle/2434/728100

    2020

  12. [21]

    Option pricing when underlying stock returns are discontinuous

    Robert C Merton. Option pricing when underlying stock returns are discontinuous. Journal of Financial Economics , 3(1-2):125–144, 1976. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90022-2

    1976 doi

  13. [22]

    Tail risk and uncertainty in financial markets

    Robert Millar. Tail risk and uncertainty in financial markets . PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, 2024. URL: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/ eprint/15426/

    2024

  14. [23]

    Modelling extreme tail risk of Bitcoin returns using the generalised pareto distribution

    Providence Mushori and Delson Chikobvu. Modelling extreme tail risk of Bitcoin returns using the generalised pareto distribution. 2024. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1003794

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    AI-driven adaptive asset allocation: A ma chine learning approach to dynamic portfolio optimization in volatile financial markets, 2025

    Ayobami Gabriel Olanrewaju, Adeyinka Oluwasimisola Ajayi, Omo- labake Ibironke Pacheco, Adebayo Oluwatosin Dada, and Ade- peju Ayotunde Adeyinka. AI-driven adaptive asset allocation: A ma chine learning approach to dynamic portfolio optimization in volatile financial markets, 2...

    2025

  16. [25]

    The crypt ocurrency market through the scope of volatility clustering and leverage effec ts

    Filip Peovski, Violeta Cvetkoska, and Igor Ivanovski. The crypt ocurrency market through the scope of volatility clustering and leverage effec ts. Acadlore Trans Appl Math Stat , 1:130–147, 2023. URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.56578/atams010302

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    Construction of Effective Regime-Switching Portfolios Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template REFERENCES 29 Using a Combination of Machine Learning and Traditional App roaches

    Piotr Pomorski. Construction of Effective Regime-Switching Portfolios Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template REFERENCES 29 Using a Combination of Machine Learning and Traditional App roaches. PhD thesis, UCL (University College London), 2024. URL: https:// discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/e...

    2021

  18. [27]

    Understanding temporal dynamics of jumps in cryptocurrency ma rkets: evidence from tick-by-tick data

    Danial Saef, Odett Nagy, Sergej Sizov, and Wolfgang Karl H¨ a rdle. Understanding temporal dynamics of jumps in cryptocurrency ma rkets: evidence from tick-by-tick data. Digital Finance , 6(4):605–638, 2024. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42521-024-00116-1

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    A comparative Study of Top Ten Leading Cryp- tocurrencies in 2024

    Yousef Sanjalawe et al. A comparative Study of Top Ten Leading Cryp- tocurrencies in 2024. Al-Basaer Journal of Business Research , 1(1), 2025. URL: https://doi.org/10.71202/paper22

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    Trading Psychology and Market Resilience: From Brown ian Motion to Birth–Death Process in Financial Dynamics

    YN Tang. Trading Psychology and Market Resilience: From Brown ian Motion to Birth–Death Process in Financial Dynamics. In Rout- ledge International Handbook of Complexity Economics , pages 374–399. Routledge, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003119128

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    A ripple for change: Analysis of frontrunning in the xrp ledger

    Vytautas Tumas, Beltran Borja Fiz Pontiveros, Christof Ferr eira Torres, and Radu State. A ripple for change: Analysis of frontrunning in the xrp ledger. pages 1–9, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC56567.2023. 10174999

    2023

  22. [31]

    The ripple effect: naviga ting an XRP investment decision

    Oleg Vakhromov, Ilan Alon, and Ilan Gildin. The ripple effect: naviga ting an XRP investment decision. The CASE Journal , 2025. URL: https:// doi.org/10.1108/TCJ-01-2025-0028

    2025 doi

  23. [32]

    Regime-switching factor investing with hidden markov models

    Matthew Wang, Yi-Hong Lin, and Ilya Mikhelson. Regime-switching factor investing with hidden markov models. Journal of Risk and Financial Management , 13(12):311, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ jrfm13120311

    2020

  24. [33]

    Blockchain-based digital asset circulation: A survey and Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 30 REFERENCES future challenges

    Konglin Zhu, Fengjuan Wu, Fei Wang, Tingda Shen, Hao Wu, Bowe i Xue, and Yu Liu. Blockchain-based digital asset circulation: A survey and Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 30 REFERENCES future challenges. Symmetry, 16(10):1287, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/sym16101287

    2021 doi

  25. [2000]

    URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00164

  26. [2023]

    journals/iprop28&section=8

    URL: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get pdf.cgi?handle=hein. journals/iprop28&section=8

Pith tools

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