Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 45 references

Scaling laws of Stablecoin Transactions: Evidence from USDT and USDC on the Ethereum blockchain

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read USDT and USDC transaction values on Ethereum follow heavy-tailed power laws, with exponents that split by whether a smart contract is involved.

desk verdict Solid large-scale empirical mapping of stablecoin tail exponents with a real EOA/SC split; needs formal tail-model validation before the abstract can say 'power-law'. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09378 v1 pith:5I36PK25 submitted 2026-08-10 q-fin.ST

Kundan Mukhia , Sabat Rai , Vivek Shrivastav , Imran Ansari , Md. Nurujjaman This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.ST
keywords StablecoinEthereumUSDTUSDCPower-lawdistributionHeavytailsScalingexponentBlockchaintransactions
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 the dollar-denominated values of USDT and USDC transfers on Ethereum follow heavy-tailed power-law distributions in every period and every interaction category, with tail exponents in the range 1.4 to 1.8. More specifically, it claims the exponent separates into two regimes: transactions involving at least one externally owned account (a user-controlled wallet) cluster near 1.45–1.60, while smart-contract-to-smart-contract transfers sit higher, near 1.72–1.73. The reason this would matter is that it turns an unexplored corner of blockchain finance into a statistical object comparable to stock returns, trade sizes, and other quantities in the financial-scaling literature, while showing that the interaction mechanism, not just the asset, shapes the tail. The paper also argues on the basis of a counterfactual exercise that shifts in the mix of transaction categories explain only 10–35% of the temporal variation of the overall exponent, so the observed drift in the pooled exponent reflects changes inside categories rather than mere composition changes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tail exponent $\alpha$ of the power-law density $p(x) = C x^{-\alpha}$ for $x \geq x_{\min}$, estimated by maximum likelihood after selecting $x_{\min}$ to minimize the Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance between the empirical and fitted cumulative distributions. The second essential piece is the interaction classification of Ethereum accounts into externally owned accounts (user-controlled wallets) and smart contracts (program-controlled accounts), which produces the four categories whose exponents are compared. The third piece is the composition-only counterfactual exponent $\alpha_{\mathrm{comp},t} = \sum_i w_i(t) \alpha_{i,\mathrm{ref}}$, where the category weights $w_i(t)$ change over time but the category exponents are held at their six-period averages; this counterfactual is the test that separates composition effects from within-category tail changes.

What would settle it

Run a bootstrap goodness-of-fit test for power-law fits on the USDT and USDC tails; if most of the fitted category-period combinations fail the test, the claim of power-law scaling would be weakened, and a direct comparison of log-likelihoods against a lognormal fit would decide whether the tail is actually a power law or merely heavy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with roughly 370 million USDT and USDC transactions on Ethereum across six periods from June 2024 to February 2026, the paper reports that the complementary cumulative distribution of transaction values is “well described by the power-law form above $x_{\min}$” for both stablecoins, all four interaction categories (EOA–EOA, EOA–SC, SC–EOA, SC–SC), and all six periods. The maximum-likelihood estimates of the tail exponent $\alpha$ fall in $1.4 \lesssim \alpha \lesssim 1.8$, consistent with earlier estimates for trade sizes and share volumes. Averaged over periods, the three EOA-involved categories give $\alpha \approx 1.45$\u2013$1.60$, whereas the SC–SC category gives $\alpha \approx 1.72$\u2013$1.73$, and this separation persists across fitting sample sizes from 50,000 to 800,000 and across five random seeds. The composition-only counterfactual, which holds category exponents fixed and lets only category weights vary, reproduces only 10–35% of the temporal range of the directly fitted overall exponent. The paper's own conclusion is careful: the results show recurring power-law-like tails with robust interaction-specific differences, not a single universal tail exponent for stablecoins.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a maximum-likelihood power-law fit with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov-chosen threshold and a visual check of the complementary cumulative distribution is sufficient to establish that the tails are power-law, and it does not test the power-law null against other heavy-tailed distribution families.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The overall pooled exponent is a mixture of category-specific exponents, so studies of stablecoin scaling should stratify by account type rather than fit a single tail.
  • Because the exponent separation is stable across four fitting sample sizes and five random seeds, the two-regime structure is unlikely to be an artifact of subsampling.
  • The counterfactual range result (10–35%) implies that temporal changes in the overall exponent signal changes in the shape of category-level tails, not just changes in which category dominates the transaction count.
  • With exponents between 1.4 and 1.8, the tail distributions have infinite variance, so standard deviation-based risk measures for stablecoin transfer sizes are not well defined and tail-focused metrics are needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same classification and counterfactual machinery could be applied to other blockchains and stablecoins (the paper lists DAI, BUSD, USDP, BSC, Solana, and Polygon as future work), which would test whether the EOA-versus-SC split is specific to Ethereum or a general property of smart-contract settlement.
  • One mechanism the paper leaves implicit is that SC–SC transfers are dominated by DeFi protocol operations—swaps, liquidity provisioning, rebalancing—which may process amounts on a different economic scale than human peer-to-peer payments; that difference could explain the higher exponent.
  • If the tails were instead better described by a lognormal or truncated Pareto distribution, the fitted exponents would remain useful descriptive numbers but would not by themselves support a scaling-law interpretation; this is a testable alternative, not a failure of the empirical regularities reported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes approximately 370 million USDT and USDC transfers on the Ethereum blockchain across six periods from June 2024 to February 2026. Transactions are classified into four interaction categories (EOA–EOA, EOA–SC, SC–EOA, SC–SC), and the paper fits power-law tails to transaction-value distributions using maximum-likelihood estimation with a KS-distance-based x_min selection. The authors report that all categories and periods exhibit heavy-tailed power-law scaling, with EOA-involved categories clustering around alpha ≈ 1.45–1.60 and SC–SC transactions around alpha ≈ 1.72–1.73. Robustness is assessed by varying fitting sample sizes and random seeds, and a composition-only counterfactual exponent is constructed to test whether changing category weights can explain the temporal variation of the overall exponent. The paper concludes that interaction-specific scaling regimes exist and that composition changes alone cannot reproduce the observed overall exponent path.

Significance. If the power-law claim survives formal validation, this would be the first large-scale empirical characterization of stablecoin transaction-value tails, with a valuable decomposition by account interaction type. The dataset is large, the estimation is standard, and the sensitivity analysis is thorough: the authors test five fitting sample sizes and five random seeds per condition and report stable mean exponents. The counterfactual is explicitly labeled as descriptive, and the conclusion appropriately notes that universality would require formal tail-model validation. However, the manuscript's central claim that the tails are 'well described by the power-law form' currently rests on visual inspection and MLE fits alone, without the goodness-of-fit tests and alternative-family comparisons that the cited Clauset et al. framework prescribes. The two-regime separation is also weaker in later periods than the averaged numbers suggest. These gaps are fixable and do not undermine the value of the data construction, but they temper the strength of the current conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 1] The central claim that the distributions 'are well described by the power-law form above xmin' is not supported by any goodness-of-fit test. Section 2.1 explicitly adopts the Clauset et al. framework, whose standard protocol includes a semi-parametric bootstrap p-value for the power-law null and a comparison against alternative heavy-tailed families; neither is performed, and no p-values are reported. Many heavy-tailed families (e.g., lognormal, truncated power law) can appear approximately linear on the fitted range, so the MLE exponents alone do not establish that the tail is power-law rather than merely heavy-tailed. The conclusion itself concedes that 'confirmation of universality would require formal tail-model validation,' which is in tension with the categorical wording of the abstract and Section 4.1. I recommend either adding the bootstrap p-values and alternative-model comparisons, or softening the claims throughout to 'heavy-tailed' and 'power-law-like.'
  2. [Section 4.1, Fig. 1(e)-(f), Table 4] The two-regime separation is weaker than the averaged numbers suggest. For USDT in Period 5 the SC-SC exponent is 1.593 and in Period 6 it is 1.621; for USDC the corresponding values are 1.560 and 1.637. These values overlap the upper end of the EOA-involved range (~1.43–1.60), so the claim that SC-SC transactions exhibit exponents of approximately 1.72–1.73 relies on earlier periods and on averaging across periods with large standard deviations (0.120 for USDT, 0.148 for USDC in the N=200,000 row of Table 4). The authors should report per-period confidence intervals and a formal test of whether the regime separation is statistically significant, rather than comparing period-averaged point estimates.
  3. [Sections 2.2 and 4.3, Table 5] The counterfactual conclusion is stated more strongly than the analysis supports. The quantity C_range = 100 * Delta_alpha_comp / Delta_alpha_actual compares only the temporal ranges of two different objects: the pooled-distribution exponent and a weighted average of category-specific exponents. As the authors note, a pooled exponent is not equal to a weighted average of component exponents, so the '10%–35%' figure is a descriptive range ratio, not a measure of explained variation. The abstract and conclusion nevertheless say composition changes 'cannot explain' the observed variation. I suggest either presenting a direct comparison of the two paths (e.g., correlation or mean absolute difference) and/or consistently using language such as 'is not reproduced by a composition-only counterfactual in this descriptive sense.'
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'February 202' but should read 'February 2026' to match Table 1 and the body text.
  2. [Section 4.1] The estimated x_min values are never reported in the text or tables; reporting them would allow readers to assess the tail fraction and reproduce the fits.
  3. [Table 3] The USDC total of 158,945,393 does not match the sum of the four category totals (158,944,393), an apparent arithmetic error of 1,000.
  4. [Figure 1 caption] The inequality symbol renders as '6' in 'P(X 6 x)'; the typesetting of the less-than-or-equal sign should be corrected.
  5. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'the three categories involving EOAs interaction cluster' is awkward; suggest 'the three EOA-involved categories'.
  6. [References] References [30] and [36] are the same Clauset et al. paper; please consolidate or clearly distinguish the SIAM Review version from the arXiv preprint.
  7. [Data availability] The statement that preprocessed data are 'available from the author' should be 'the authors' or list a corresponding author.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports fitted power-law exponents and a descriptive composition counterfactual; neither a prediction nor a derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The central quantities are maximum-likelihood tail exponents fitted to the empirical transaction-value distributions for each category, period, and stablecoin. Reporting fitted exponents from the same data is standard empirical characterization rather than circular prediction: nothing is claimed out of sample, and the two-regime separation (EOA-involved alpha about 1.45-1.60 vs SC-SC about 1.72-1.73) is a clustering of independently fitted numbers, not a self-defined identity. The composition counterfactual alpha_comp,t = sum_i w_i(t) alpha_i,ref is explicitly descriptive; the paper states that a pooled-distribution exponent is not generally equal to a weighted average of its component exponents, so comparing temporal ranges is an honest empirical finding rather than a tautology. Self-citations [3,8,15,16] are background references and are not load-bearing, and the power-law estimation framework is cited to the external Clauset et al. reference. The manuscript's own limitation, that confirming universality would require formal tail-model validation, is a statistical-validity concern (no goodness-of-fit test against alternative heavy-tailed families), not a circularity concern. No derivation step in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical result rests on the fitted exponents and fitted lower thresholds, plus the assumption that the power-law model is the right tail model. No new entities or mechanisms are introduced. The main uncharged assumption is that visual fit quality is enough to validate power-law behavior.

free parameters (3)
  • Tail exponent alpha per stablecoin, period, and category = about 1.43 to 2.00; EOA categories mostly 1.45-1.60, SC-SC mostly 1.72-1.73
    Maximum-likelihood estimate from each category/period sample; the central claim is a statement about these fitted values.
  • Lower tail cutoff xmin per stablecoin, period, and category = not reported numerically
    Chosen by KS minimization over candidate values; every exponent and confidence interval depends on this fitted threshold.
  • Reference exponents alpha_i,ref used in the counterfactual = six-period averages per category
    Averaged from the fitted period exponents and then held fixed; the counterfactual path is a weighted linear combination of these fitted values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The power-law tail model with threshold xmin is the correct generative form for transaction values above xmin.
    The paper assumes the Clauset framework applies but does not run its goodness-of-fit test or compare alternatives; invoked in Section 2.1 and Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption Observations within a category and period can be treated as exchangeable draws for MLE sampling distributions.
    No correction for serial dependence or clustering in blockchain transaction streams; Section 2.1 uses the standard i.i.d.-type likelihood.
  • domain assumption One raw token unit equals exactly 1/1,000,000 USD for both USDT and USDC.
    Equation (5) converts raw value by 10^6; this ignores peg deviations and historical market price variation.
  • standard math The KS-minimized xmin identifies an unbiased scaling region.
    The Clauset et al. procedure is adopted in Section 2.1 and accepted in the literature, but no bootstrap validation of the threshold is reported.
  • domain assumption The XBlock-ETH dataset and Etherscan contract addresses correctly identify USDT/USDC transfers and the EOA/SC flags.
    Section 3 relies on XBlock and Etherscan contract addresses; no independent validation of data completeness or flag accuracy is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling laws of Stablecoin Transactions: Evidence from USDT and USDC on the Ethereum blockchain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5I36PK25

@misc{pith2026260809378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling laws of Stablecoin Transactions: Evidence from USDT and USDC on the Ethereum blockchain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5I36PK25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09378}
}
read the original abstract

Stablecoins have rapidly emerged as an important class of digital assets and a component of the digital financial ecosystem. Despite their growing importance, the statistical properties of stablecoin transaction activity remain largely unexplored. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate scaling behavior in stablecoin transaction data, focusing on USDT and USDC. We analyze approximately 370 million USDT and USDC transactions recorded on the Ethereum blockchain across six periods spanning June 2024 to February 2026. Based on interactions between Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) and Smart Contracts (SCs), we classify transactions into four categories: EOA-EOA, EOA-SC, SC-EOA, and SC-SC. Using maximum-likelihood estimation of power-law exponents, we find that transaction value distributions exhibit heavy-tailed scaling for both stablecoins across all periods and interaction categories. We identify two distinct scaling regimes: EOA-involved categories cluster around 1.45-1.60, whereas SC-SC transactions exhibit higher exponents of approximately 1.72-1.73. Sensitivity analysis confirms that this separation is robust across periods, stablecoins, and fitting sample sizes. Counterfactual analysis shows that changes in category weights alone cannot explain the observed variation in the overall exponent. Across different sample sizes, the counterfactual path accounts for only about 10%-35% of the total temporal range observed in the actual data. Overall, our results indicate two broadly differentiated scaling regimes in the tail of stablecoin transaction values. Power-law tail behavior is observed throughout stablecoin transaction activity, but the exponent depends on whether transactions are driven by EOAs or SCs. These findings provide a basis for further research on scaling behavior and transaction heterogeneity in blockchain-based financial systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. W. Arner, R. Auer, J. Frost, Stablecoins: risks, potential and regulation (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Catalini, A

    C. Catalini, A. de Gortari, N. Shah, Some simple economics of stablecoins, Annual Review of Financial Economics 14 (2022) 117–135

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    K.Mukhia,B.N.Sharma,S.R.Luwang,M.Nurujjaman,C.Hens,S.Saha,T.Chakraborty, Early-warningsignalsofpoliticalriskinstablecoin markets: Human and algorithmic behavior around the 2024 us election, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.00893 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    R. K. Lyons, G. Viswanath-Natraj, What keeps stablecoins stable?, Journal of International Money and Finance 131 (2023) 102777

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    K. Duan, A. Urquhart, The instability of stablecoins, Finance Research Letters 52 (2023) 103573

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Carapella, A

    F. Carapella, A. Lubis, A. Vardoulakis, Stablecoins in 2025: Developments and financial stability implications (2026)

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    S.Ghosh,Stablecointransactionsrosetorecord$33trillionin2025,BloombergNews,2026.URL:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ articles/2026-01-08/stablecoin-transactions-rose-to-record-33-trillion-led-by-usdc, published January 9, 2026

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Universal Patterns in the Blockchain: Analysis of EOAs and Smart Contracts in ERC20 Token Networks

    K. Mukhia, S. Luwang, M. Nurujjaman, T. Chakraborty, S. Saha, C. Hens, Universal patterns in the blockchain: Analysis of eoas and smart contracts in erc20 token networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04671 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    1411–1421

    W.Chen,T.Zhang,Z.Chen,Z.Zheng,Y.Lu, Travelingthetokenworld:Agraphanalysisofethereumerc20tokenecosystem, in:Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, 2020, pp. 1411–1421

    2020

  2. [10]

    Kolvart, M

    M. Kolvart, M. Poola, A. Rull, Smart contracts, The Future of Law and etechnologies (2016) 133–147

    2016

  3. [11]

    Szabo, The idea of smart contracts, Nick Szabo’s papers and concise tutorials 6 (1997) 199

    N. Szabo, The idea of smart contracts, Nick Szabo’s papers and concise tutorials 6 (1997) 199

    1997

  4. [12]

    Gopikrishnan, M

    P. Gopikrishnan, M. Meyer, L. A. N. Amaral, H. E. Stanley, Inverse cubic law for the probability distribution of stock price variations, arXiv preprint cond-mat/9803374 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H. E. Stanley, V. Plerou, X. Gabaix, A statistical physics view of financial fluctuations: Evidence for scaling and universality, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387 (2008) 3967–3981

    2008

  6. [14]

    Y.Sato,K.Kanazawa, Strictuniversalityofthesquare-rootlawinpriceimpactacrossstocks:Acompletesurveyofthetokyostockexchange, Physical Review Letters 135 (2025) 257401

    2025

  7. [15]

    Mukhia, I

    K. Mukhia, I. Ansari, S. Luwang, M. Nurujjaman, Core-periphery dynamics in market-conditioned financial networks: A conditional p- threshold mutual information approach, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00395 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    Mukhia, A

    K. Mukhia, A. Rai, S. Luwang, M. Nurujjaman, S. Majhi, C. Hens, Complex network analysis of cryptocurrency market during crashes, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 653 (2024) 130095. First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 13 of 14 Scaling la...

    2024

  9. [17]

    V.Plerou,P.Gopikrishnan,L.A.N.Amaral,M.Meyer,H.E.Stanley, Scalingofthedistributionofpricefluctuationsofindividualcompanies, Physical review e 60 (1999) 6519

    1999

  10. [18]

    Plerou, H

    V. Plerou, H. E. Stanley, Stock return distributions: tests of scaling and universality from three distinct stock markets, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 77 (2008) 037101

    2008

  11. [19]

    P. C. Ivanov, A. Yuen, B. Podobnik, Y. Lee, Common scaling patterns in intertrade times of us stocks, Physical Review E 69 (2004) 056107

    2004

  12. [20]

    Zhou, W.-K

    W.-X. Zhou, W.-K. Yuan, Inverse statistics in stock markets: Universality and idiosyncracy, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 353 (2005) 433–444

    2005

  13. [21]

    S.Begušić,Z.Kostanjčar,H.E.Stanley,B.Podobnik, Scalingpropertiesofextremepricefluctuationsinbitcoinmarkets, PhysicaA:Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 510 (2018) 400–406

    2018

  14. [22]

    K. Wu, S. Wheatley, D. Sornette, Classification of cryptocurrency coins and tokens by the dynamics of their market capitalizations, Royal Society open science 5 (2018) 180381

    2018

  15. [23]

    M.Wątorek,S.Drożdż,J.Kwapień,L.Minati,P.Oświęcimka,M.Stanuszek, Multiscalecharacteristicsoftheemergingglobalcryptocurrency market, Physics Reports 901 (2021) 1–82

    2021

  16. [24]

    M.-Y. Li, Q. Cai, G.-F. Gu, W.-X. Zhou, Exponentially decayed double power-law distribution of bitcoin trade sizes, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 535 (2019) 122380

    2019

  17. [25]

    A.Mahrous,M.Caprolu,R.DiPietro, Stablecoins:Fundamentals,emergingissues,andopenchallenges, InternationalReviewofEconomics & Finance (2026) 105665

    2026

  18. [26]

    Berentsen, F

    A. Berentsen, F. Schär, Stablecoins: The quest for a low-volatility cryptocurrency, The economics of Fintech and digital currencies (2019) 65–75

    2019

  19. [27]

    Klages-Mundt, D

    A. Klages-Mundt, D. Harz, L. Gudgeon, J.-Y. Liu, A. Minca, Stablecoins 2.0: Economic foundations and risk-based models, in: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, 2020, pp. 59–79

    2020

  20. [28]

    Claessens, T

    S. Claessens, T. Rice, Bis papers (2026)

    2026

  21. [29]

    CoinMarketCap, Top stablecoin tokens by market capitalization,https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Clauset, C

    A. Clauset, C. R. Shalizi, M. E. Newman, Power-law distributions in empirical data, SIAM review 51 (2009) 661–703

    2009

  23. [31]

    Mitzenmacher, A brief history of generative models for power law and lognormal distributions, Internet mathematics 1 (2004) 226–251

    M. Mitzenmacher, A brief history of generative models for power law and lognormal distributions, Internet mathematics 1 (2004) 226–251

    2004

  24. [32]

    Barabási, R

    A.-L. Barabási, R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks, science 286 (1999) 509–512

    1999

  25. [33]

    M. E. Newman, Power laws, pareto distributions and zipf’s law, Contemporary physics 46 (2005) 323–351

    2005

  26. [34]

    T. Lux, S. Alfarano, Financial power laws: Empirical evidence, models, and mechanisms, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 88 (2016) 3–18

    2016

  27. [35]

    Bouchaud, Power laws in economics and finance: Some ideas fromphysics, Quantitative finance 1 (2001) 105

    J.-P. Bouchaud, Power laws in economics and finance: Some ideas fromphysics, Quantitative finance 1 (2001) 105

    2001

  28. [36]

    Clauset, C

    A. Clauset, C. R. Shalizi, M. E. Newman, Power-law distributions in empirical data, arXiv preprint arXiv:0706.1062 (2007)

    2007 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. L. Goldstein, S. A. Morris, G. G. Yen, Problems with fitting to the power-law distribution, The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 41 (2004) 255–258

    2004

  30. [38]

    V. W. Berger, Y. Zhou, Kolmogorov–smirnov test: Overview, Wiley statsref: Statistics reference online (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    F. J. Massey Jr, The kolmogorov-smirnov test for goodness of fit, Journal of the American statistical Association 46 (1951) 68–78

    1951

  32. [40]

    O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen, D. R. Cox, Prediction and asymptotics (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Wasserman, All of statistics: a concise course in statistical inference, volume 26, Springer, 2004

    L. Wasserman, All of statistics: a concise course in statistical inference, volume 26, Springer, 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    Zheng, Z

    P. Zheng, Z. Zheng, J. Wu, H.-N. Dai, Xblock-eth: Extracting and exploring blockchain data from ethereum, IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society 1 (2020) 95–106

    2020

  35. [43]

    XBlock, XBlock-ETH dataset website,http://xblock.pro/xblock-eth.html, ???? Accessed: 2026-08-05

    2026

  36. [44]

    Etherscan, Etherscan,https://etherscan.io/, ???? Accessed: 2026-08-05

    2026

  37. [45]

    First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 14 of 14

    Wikipedia contributors, Unix time,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time, ???? Accessed: 2026-08-05. First Author et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 14 of 14

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.