Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Anatomy of a Digital Bubble: Lessons Learned from the NFT and Metaverse Frenzy

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Decentraland's 2021 virtual-land bubble is diagnosed by the disappearance of location-based pricing, with early sellers profiting and late entrants losing.

desk verdict Solid empirical anatomy of the Decentraland bubble, but the key distance-gradient collapse may be a venue-mix artifact the authors can check with data they already have. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09601 v2 pith:7ROOHZAF submitted 2025-01-16 cs.CY

Daisuke Kawai , Kyle Soska , Bryan Routledge , Ariel Zetlin-Jones , Nicolas Christin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords Decentralandnon-fungibletokensNFTmetaversespeculativebubblebid-renttheoryvirtualrealestateblockchainlandmarkets
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

Decentraland is a blockchain-based virtual world where each land parcel is an NFT. The paper assembles the full Ethereum transaction history of LAND parcels from 2019 through 2023, together with Decentraland's parcel and building records and four years of Reddit posts, to determine whether the 2021 price explosion was a speculative bubble. It establishes that before 2021, parcel prices followed real-estate bid-rent theory: prices fell with distance from the Genesis Plaza, the virtual city's center. During the NFT and metaverse hype of 2021, however, the location signal disappeared, short-term flipping surged, and early holders sold heavily to newcomers. Its profit-and-loss accounting shows early adopters earned roughly $10{,}000$--$15{,}000$ per parcel sold while late entrants lost about $1{,}000$ per parcel, a wealth transfer the paper argues arose because self-regulated digital marketplaces gave novices little protection.

What carries the argument

Three linked instruments carry the argument. Bid-rent theory, applied to Decentraland by taking the Genesis Plaza as the single central business district, supplies the null model: if virtual land behaves like real estate, prices should decay with distance. The regression $$\log P_{i,n} = c + \sum_t [\alpha_t + \delta_t \log(1+D_i)] \, \text{Quarter}_{t,n} + \sum_J \beta_J I_{J,i} + \epsilon_n$$ turns that theory into a quarter-by-quarter estimate of the distance coefficient $\delta_t$; the evolution of $\delta_t$ is the paper's bubble indicator. The per-account profit-and-loss accounting, built by chaining LAND token transfers on Ethereum and estimating bulk-sale prices pro rata, identifies who sold to whom and who gained or lost. Reddit topic modeling with the GSDMM method and the comment-removal rate supply the public sentiment layer that links the bubble to general NFT and metaverse hype rather than platform-specific news.

What would settle it

One could settle the claim by reconstructing what drew visitors during the bubble: if Decentraland's 2021 visit or teleport logs showed that foot traffic did not decrease with distance from the Genesis Plaza during the price surge, the premise that location was a stable fundamental would fail and the bubble reading would not be forced. Conversely, if visitors still concentrated near the center while prices ignored location, the disconnect would be confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Decentraland's 2021 run-up in virtual land prices was a speculative bubble, not a reassessment of fundamentals. The evidence is a quarterly regression of log listing and sales prices on the log distance from the Genesis Plaza, $\log(1 + D_i)$, interacted with quarter dummies. In 2019 through early 2021, the distance coefficient $\delta_t$ was significantly negative, about $-0.4$ for listings and $-0.2$ to $-0.4$ for sales: closeness to the center commanded a premium, as bid-rent theory predicts. From 2021 Q2 through the peak of hype, $\delta_t$ collapsed and became statistically insignificant in 2021 Q4, meaning a parcel's location no longer affected its price. The paper reads this, together with more than 40% of parcels bought by multi-parcel investors being resold within two weeks during the bubble and minimal commercial development, as evidence of speculation rather than use value. Matching purchase and sale records per Ethereum account, the authors find a large wealth transfer: accounts that bought early and sold during the peak realized $10{,}000$--$15{,}000$ per parcel, while accounts that entered during the bubble typically broke even or lost on the order of $1{,}000$ per parcel. The same distance-decay pattern weakening during the hype appears in The Sandbox, another blockchain land platform, which the paper offers as evidence that the finding generalizes.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that being close to the center of the virtual map was truly a source of value for Decentraland land during the boom, not just before it; the paper validates this with visitor traffic data collected only in 2024, after the bubble, so if location genuinely became unimportant to players in 2021 for non-speculative reasons, prices stopping following location would not by itself prove a bubble.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the analysis is correct, virtual-land pricing in other blockchain metaverses should show the same regime change: a significant distance-decay coefficient in calm periods that collapses during hype, as the paper documents for The Sandbox.
  • The per-account profit data imply that liquidity in NFT land markets comes disproportionately from early holders, so price surges transfer wealth from late entrants to early adopters even when the platform itself creates little new value.
  • Reddit discussion volume and comment-removal rates co-move with trading volume and the downturn, suggesting social-media sentiment data can serve as a real-time signal of speculative phases in decentralized asset markets.
  • Because these marketplaces are largely self-regulated, the documented losses support policy responses such as mandatory risk disclosure and user education rather than relying on market discipline alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not pursue it, but its quarterly $\delta_t$ series could be used prospectively as a bubble gauge for other spatial NFT markets: monitor the distance coefficient before prices peak, and a collapse in that coefficient is a warning sign worth testing in real time.
  • A natural out-of-sample check the authors do not run is to apply the identical regression to a later Decentraland revival or to a new metaverse land platform and see whether the same disappearance of location pricing predicts a subsequent wave of retail losses.
  • The welfare result is framed at the market level, so one could extend it by quantifying whether the early adopters' realized gains match the identifiable losses of late entrants parcel-by-parcel, and whether any concentrated holders timed their selling together.
  • The regulatory implication could be tested directly: compare new-entrant loss rates across NFT marketplaces that did and did not implement risk disclosures, to see whether disclosure changes entry or loss patterns during the next hype cycle.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the 2021 Decentraland LAND price run-up using Ethereum blockchain transaction records, Decentraland APIs, and Reddit posts. It claims that before 2021, LAND prices followed bid-rent theory (prices decline with distance from the Genesis Plaza), that during the 2021 NFT/metaverse hype the distance gradient collapsed, and that early adopters profited on the order of $10,000–15,000 per parcel while new entrants made little or no profit and frequently lost about $1,000 per parcel. The evidence combines a quarterly regression of log price on log distance with controls, a short-term "flipping" analysis, commercial-development statistics, and cohort profit-and-loss calculations. The paper concludes that the 2021 boom was a speculative bubble and draws regulatory and investor-education lessons.

Significance. If the identification concerns are addressed, this is a valuable quantitative case study of a digital-asset bubble with unusually complete transaction-level data. The cohort P&L asymmetry between early adopters and new entrants is a concrete, policy-relevant finding, and the use of external benchmarks (Google Trends, Reddit engagement, and a comparison to The Sandbox) strengthens the analysis. The paper is also honest about several limitations, such as the post-hoc visitor data and the bulk-sale price allocation. However, the central bubble diagnosis rests on a distance-gradient regression estimated on a subsample that is not representative during the bubble quarters, and the fundamental-value benchmark is validated with data collected after the study window; these concerns need to be addressed before the main claim is fully supported. No replication package is provided, though the underlying data sources are public.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (1), Table 1] The regression that produces the central bubble evidence (the collapse of δ_t) is estimated only on LAND listings and sales in the Decentraland marketplace, yet Table 1 shows that third-party marketplace sales are roughly equal to Decentraland sales during the key bubble quarters: 1,537 vs. 1,553 LAND sales in 2021 Q4 and 1,197 vs. 1,010 in 2022 Q1. The stated motivation that "sales on Decentraland dominate" is therefore not correct for the bubble period. Because third-party buyers may be systematically more NFT-speculative and less sensitive to in-world geography, the distance-gradient collapse could be a marketplace-composition artifact rather than evidence of a bubble. The authors already collected third-party sales data for the P&L analysis; they should re-estimate Eq. (1) with these transactions included (with appropriate controls for bundle-sale price allocation) or compare venue-specific δ_t estimates.
  2. [Section 4 and Appendix B] The bid-rent benchmark is validated with visitor-traffic data collected from April 15 to June 5, 2024, which is after the 2019–2023 study window. The paper itself acknowledges that "we cannot directly assess whether this negative relationship holds true for the period from 2020 to 2023." If teleportation behavior, platform design, or user traffic patterns changed during the 2021 hype for rational reasons, the weakening of the distance coefficient would not by itself identify a bubble. A contemporaneous visitor-traffic analysis, or a robustness check using within-sample commercial-development or usage data, is needed to support the interpretation that the gradient collapse reflects speculation rather than a rational change in the value of location.
  3. [Section 3 and Section 6.3] The P&L analysis, which supports the headline claim that early adopters made $10,000–15,000 per parcel, allocates bulk-sale prices by simply dividing the total transaction price by the number of NFT items involved. Section 3 notes that third-party bulk sales may include NFTs unrelated to Decentraland, and third-party sales account for roughly half of bubble-period LAND volume. This equal-split allocation could materially bias per-parcel profits, especially if bundles combine LAND with lower-value or unrelated items. The authors should report robustness to alternative allocations, such as excluding ambiguous bundles, using floor-price-based LAND values, or computing sensitivity bounds.
  4. [Section 6.2 and Figure 10] The text states that "more than 40% of the parcels are sold within two weeks," but the plotted statistic is defined as the ratio of short-term retention among parcels bought by buyers of multiple parcels, not among all parcels. This overstates the generality of the flipping result, which is used to characterize the market as subject to "rampant short-term speculation." The denominator should be stated unambiguously in both the figure and the text, and the flipping claim should be rephrased to match the actual statistic.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] There is a typo: "metaverse-related asssets" should be "metaverse-related assets."
  2. [Section 4] There is a typo: "Decentralnad" should be "Decentraland."
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to "LAND trading volume and number of Reddit posts," but the figure actually displays Reddit submissions and Google Trends scores; the caption should be corrected.
  4. [Section 6.2 and Figure 9] The figure labels "NS/NOwn" and "tNS/NOwn" are not defined in the figure itself; the text explains the red line only in prose, so the meaning should be added to the axis labels or legend.
  5. [Table 3] The AIC row contains a stray space in "4 .878×10^4"; this is a formatting error.
  6. [Section 7] The conclusion says new entrants were left with losses "reaching hundreds of dollars," while earlier sections state losses "in the order of 1,000 USD"; these magnitudes should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the price dynamics are estimated against an external bid-rent benchmark, and the profit asymmetry is computed from transaction records.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that Decentraland LAND prices followed bid-rent theory before 2021 and became disconnected from geography during the 2021 hype—rests on estimating the distance coefficient δ_t in Eq. (1), a regression whose regressor (log distance from Genesis Plaza) and dependent variable (log parcel price) are measured independently from blockchain and Decentraland API data. The 'bubble' characterization is not definitionally equivalent to a fitted parameter; it is an interpretation of the estimated time path of δ_t, corroborated by external Reddit/Google Trends activity, short-term flipping statistics, and commercial-use proxies. The P&L asymmetry (early adopters profiting roughly $10k–$15k per parcel; late entrants losing roughly $1k) is computed directly from the blockchain transaction trail and is not a function of the regression, so it cannot be forced by the model. The only self-citation of note is the closing analogy to the authors' BitMEX study (Soska et al. [58]), which is illustrative, not load-bearing: the Decentraland wealth-transfer result stands on the transaction records analyzed here. Likewise, the 2024 visitor-traffic validation (Appendix B) is post-window and admittedly cannot directly confirm the 2020–2023 distance–visitor relationship, but that is a stated limitation about external validity rather than a circular step. The exclusion of third-party marketplaces from the regression is a data-coverage threat to the representativeness of δ_t during bubble quarters (Table 1 shows near-equal volumes in 2021 Q4 and 2022 Q1), but this is an empirical/correctness concern, not a case of the paper defining its prediction in terms of its inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The regression and P&L conclusions rest on a set of modeling choices and assumptions that are reasonable but not independently verified: the relevance of bid-rent theory in a teleportation-enabled virtual world, the post hoc outlier and bot exclusions, and the price-splitting rule for bundle sales. The free parameters are standard statistical choices rather than quantities fit to force the conclusion.

free parameters (4)
  • Studentized residual cutoff for outlier exclusion = 3.00
    Observations with studentized residuals above 3.00 are excluded from the regression (Appendix B). The cutoff is a conventional choice, but it directly affects the estimated distance coefficients and is applied post hoc.
  • GSDMM topic count = 10
    Number of topics chosen by maximizing coherence score (Appendix A); the resulting topic proportions and temporal trends depend on this choice.
  • Distance cutoff for IClose = D < 20
    Parcels within distance 20 of the center are captured by a separate dummy because of apparent price discrepancy (Section 4); the cutoff appears chosen visually from Figure 16.
  • Bulk sale price allocation = total price / number of NFT items
    For multi-item transactions, per-parcel price is estimated by dividing the total price by the number of NFTs involved (Section 4). If a bundle contains unrelated NFTs, per-parcel profits are misestimated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bid-rent theory applies to virtual land: distance from the Genesis Plaza is a fundamental determinant of value
    Invoked in Section 4 to justify the regression specification; the 2024 visitor data provides indirect validation but does not cover the study period.
  • domain assumption Teleportation does not eliminate the effect of distance on user traffic
    Stated as a hypothesis in Section 4; Appendix B reports a negative distance-visitor relationship using April-June 2024 data, outside the 2019-2023 study window.
  • ad hoc to paper Developed parcels are never cleared to vacant lots
    Assumed in Section 6.2 so that the stock of developed parcels is monotonically increasing; the paper acknowledges this is a bold assumption.
  • domain assumption Visitor traffic from April-June 2024 is representative of the 2019-2023 period
    Used to support the centrality assumption; no direct evidence links the post-crash traffic pattern to the bubble period.
  • ad hoc to paper Accounts that transferred or received LAND for free are excluded to avoid owner reidentification
    Section 4 P&L analysis; such transfers are skipped, which could bias profit calculations if they represent actual sales at non-zero price.
  • domain assumption The Genesis Plaza is the single center of Decentraland
    Used to define the distance variable in Eq. (1); the paper notes users spawn there, but no formal test justifies it as the unique central business district.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anatomy of a Digital Bubble: Lessons Learned from the NFT and Metaverse Frenzy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ROOHZAF

@misc{pith2026250109601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anatomy of a Digital Bubble: Lessons Learned from the NFT and Metaverse Frenzy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ROOHZAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09601}
}
read the original abstract

In the past few years, "metaverse" and "non-fungible tokens (NFT)" have become buzzwords, and the prices of related assets have exhibited large fluctuations. Are those characteristic of a speculative bubble? In this paper, we attempt to answer this question, and better understand the underlying economic dynamics. We look at Decentraland, a virtual world platform where land parcels are sold as NFT collections. We find that initially, land prices followed traditional real estate pricing models - in particular, value decreased with distance from the most desirable areas - suggesting Decentraland behaved much like a virtual city. However, these real estate pricing models stopped applying when both the metaverse and NFTs gained increased popular attention and enthusiasm in 2021, suggesting a new driving force for the underlying asset prices. At that time, following a substantial rise in NFT market values, short-term holders of multiple parcels began to take major selling positions in the Decentraland market, which hints that, rather than building a metaverse community, early Decentraland investors preferred to cash out when land valuations became inflated. Our analysis also shows that while the majority of buyers are new entrants to the market (many of whom joined during the bubble), liquidity (i.e., parcels) was mostly provided by early adopters selling, which caused stark differences in monetary gains. Early adopters made money - more than 10,000 USD on average per parcel sold - but users who joined later typically made no profit or even incurred losses in the order of 1,000 USD per parcel. Unlike established markets such as financial and real estate markets, newly emergent digital marketplaces are mostly self-regulated. As a result, the significant financial risks we identify indicate a strong need for establishing appropriate standards of business conduct and improving user awareness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09601 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Map of Decentraland color-coded with parcel types: district (grey), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reddit conversations. A user posts a “submission” under a relevant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LAND trading volume and number of Reddit posts. The blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The word cloud of the three most salient topics according to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Number of submission posts for the three most popular Decentra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comments on submissions categorized into the two main topics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The spatial dependence of land prices (δ) for quarters in 2019-2023. The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The grey-colored area shows the 18-month interval surrounding the “peak hype” of 2021 Q4. 6.2 Analysis of parcels’ value for commercial purpose…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Snapshot of a Decentraland parcel with social media icons that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Building statistics on Decentraland parcels. Figure 9a shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sales and purchases of multiple-parcel buyers, and ratio of short [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative number of unique sellers and buyers and its quarterly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Profit landowners made based on when a parcel was bought (“pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Median sales profit per parcel, number of unique sellers, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Unique landowners divided into tiers based on the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The median number of parcel visitors for the period from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The observations of listing transactions on the Decentraland mar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows the dependence of sales prices (log P) on the distance from the center. It shows that geographical distance matters even less than outside of the price bubble in Decentraland. This result hints that our finding for Decentraland can be applied to other metaverse …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The spatial distribution of developed parcels. Lines show the num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    American Economic Review 107(8):2352–2408, ISSN 0002-8282, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140205

    Adam K, Marcet A, Beutel J (2017) Stock price booms and expected capital gains. American Economic Review 107(8):2352–2408, ISSN 0002-8282, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140205

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.20140205 2017

  2. [2]

    Aliber RZ, Kindleberger CP, McCauley RN (2023) Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (Cham: Springer International Pub- lishing), ISBN 978-3-031-16007-3, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-031-16008-0

    doi:10.1007/978- 2023

  3. [3]

    Papers in Regional Science 6(1):149–157, ISSN 1435-5957, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1435-5597.1960.tb01710.x

    Alonso W (1960) A theory of the urban land market. Papers in Regional Science 6(1):149–157, ISSN 1435-5957, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1435-5597.1960.tb01710.x

    arXiv 1960

  4. [4]

    Alonso W (1964) Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), ISBN 978-0-674-73085-4

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    The Review of Economic Studies 88(3):1418–1456, ISSN 0034- 6527, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa045

    Asriyan V, Fornaro L, Martin A, Ventura J (2021) Monetary policy for a bubbly world. The Review of Economic Studies 88(3):1418–1456, ISSN 0034- 6527, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa045

    work page doi:10.1093/restud/rdaa045 2021

  6. [6]

    URL https://www

    Auxier B, Anderson M (2021) Social media use in 2021. URL https://www. pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Proceedings of the Interna- tional AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 4(11):2–9, ISSN 2334-0770, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14032

    Bakshy E, Simmons M, Huffaker D, Cheng CY, Adamic L (2010) The social dynamics of economic activity in a virtual world. Proceedings of the Interna- tional AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 4(11):2–9, ISSN 2334-0770, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14032

    work page doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14032 2010

  8. [8]

    Journal of Financial Economics 115(1):1–24, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.08

    Barberis N, Greenwood R, Jin L, Shleifer A (2015) X-capm: An extrapola- tive capital asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics 115(1):1–24, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.08. 007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.08 2015

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Financial Economics 129(2):203–227, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.04.007

    Barberis N, Greenwood R, Jin L, Shleifer A (2018) Extrapolation and bub- bles. Journal of Financial Economics 129(2):203–227, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.04.007. 30

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14:830–839, ISSN 2334-0770, URL http://dx.doi

    Baumgartner J, Zannettou S, Keegan B, Squire M, Blackburn J (2020) The pushshift reddit dataset. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14:830–839, ISSN 2334-0770, URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7347

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Baur DG, Hong K, Lee AD (2018) Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets? Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 54:177–189, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2017.12.004

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Management Science 69(11):6417–6426, ISSN 0025-1909, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.intro

    Biais B, Capponi A, Cong L W, Gaur V, Giesecke K (2023) Advances in blockchain and crypto economics. Management Science 69(11):6417–6426, ISSN 0025-1909, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.intro. v69.n11

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Boellstorff T (2015) Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Ex- plores the Virtually Human (Princeton University Press), ISBN 978-1-4008- 7410-1, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400874101

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    The Journal of Finance 73(1):199–227, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12586

    Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2018) Diagnostic expectations and credit cycles. The Journal of Finance 73(1):199–227, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12586

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    org/10.3386/w18400, dOI: 10.3386/w18400

    Case KE, Shiller RJ, Thompson A (2012) What have they been thinking? home buyer behavior in hot and cold markets (18400), URL http://dx.doi. org/10.3386/w18400, dOI: 10.3386/w18400

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    The Review of Financial Studies 31(11):4345–4397, ISSN 0893-9454, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rfs/ hhx139

    Cassella S, Gulen H (2018) Extrapolation bias and the predictability of stock returns by price-scaled variables. The Review of Financial Studies 31(11):4345–4397, ISSN 0893-9454, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rfs/ hhx139

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Management Science 65(12):5901–5913, ISSN 0025-1909, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.2019.3357

    Cheng SF, De Franco G, Jiang H, Lin P (2019) Riding the blockchain mania: Public firms’ speculative 8-k disclosures. Management Science 65(12):5901–5913, ISSN 0025-1909, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.2019.3357

    2019

  10. [18]

    URL https://www.christies.com/en/stories/monumental-collage-by- beeple-is-first-purely-digital-artwork-nft-to-come-to-auction- 0463a2c0f3174b17997fba8a1fe4c865

    Christie’s (2021) Beeple: A visionary digital artist at the forefront of nfts. URL https://www.christies.com/en/stories/monumental-collage-by- beeple-is-first-purely-digital-artwork-nft-to-come-to-auction- 0463a2c0f3174b17997fba8a1fe4c865

    2021

  11. [19]

    The Journal of Finance 56(6):2371–2388, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http://dx.doi

    Cooper MJ, Dimitrov O, Rau PR (2001) A rose.com by any other name. The Journal of Finance 56(6):2371–2388, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/0022-1082.00408

    2001

  12. [20]

    Cutler DM, Poterba JM, Summers LH (1990) Speculative dynamics and the role of feedback traders (3243), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w3243, dOI: 10.3386/w3243

    1990 doi

  13. [21]

    The Jour- nal of Finance 45(2):379–395, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb03695.x

    De Long JB, Shleifer A, Summers LH, Waldmann RJ (1990) Positive feed- back investment strategies and destabilizing rational speculation. The Jour- nal of Finance 45(2):379–395, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb03695.x. 31

    1990

  14. [22]

    URL https://decentraland.org/blog/announcements/sotheby-s- opens-a-virtual-gallery-in-decentraland

    Decentraland (2021) Sotheby’s opens a virtual gallery in decentra- land. URL https://decentraland.org/blog/announcements/sotheby-s- opens-a-virtual-gallery-in-decentraland

    2021

  15. [23]

    DeFusco AA, Nathanson CG, Zwick E (2017) Speculative dynamics of prices and volume (23449), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w23449, dOI: 10.3386/w23449

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    From: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-721

    Entriken W, Shirley D, Evans J, Sachs N (2018) Erc-721: Non-fungible token standard. From: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-721

    2018

  17. [25]

    From: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press- releases/2023/05/16/digital-finance-council-adopts-new-rules-on-markets-in- crypto-assets-mica/

    European Council (2023) Digital finance: Council adopts new rules on markets in crypto-assets (mica). From: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press- releases/2023/05/16/digital-finance-council-adopts-new-rules-on-markets-in- crypto-assets-mica/

    2023

  18. [26]

    URL https://www.pewresearch.org/ short-reads/2023/04/10/majority-of-americans-arent-confident- in-the-safety-and-reliability-of-cryptocurrency/

    Faverio M, Sidoti O (2023) Majority of americans aren’t confident in the safety and reliability of cryptocurrency. URL https://www.pewresearch.org/ short-reads/2023/04/10/majority-of-americans-arent-confident- in-the-safety-and-reliability-of-cryptocurrency/

    2023

  19. [27]

    Fujita M, Thisse JF (2002) Economics of Agglomeration: Cities, Industrial Location, and Regional Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805660

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    Journal of Financial Economics 104(3):452–468, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.05.005

    Gennaioli N, Shleifer A, Vishny R (2012) Neglected risks, financial innovation, and financial fragility. Journal of Financial Economics 104(3):452–468, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.05.005

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    The Review of Economic Studies 87(1):240–288, ISSN 0034- 6527, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdz032

    Gertler M, Kiyotaki N, Prestipino A (2020) A macroeconomic model with financial panics. The Review of Economic Studies 87(1):240–288, ISSN 0034- 6527, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdz032

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Journal of Financial Economics 126(1):147–170, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.06.012

    Glaeser EL, Nathanson CG (2017) An extrapolative model of house price dynamics. Journal of Financial Economics 126(1):147–170, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.06.012

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Journal of Finan- cial Economics 146(2):594–636, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.10.008

    Gupta A, Mittal V, Peeters J, Van Nieuwerburgh S (2022) Flattening the curve: Pandemic-induced revaluation of urban real estate. Journal of Finan- cial Economics 146(2):594–636, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.10.008

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    The Journal of Fi- nance 54(6):2143–2184, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http://dx.doi.org/10

    Hong H, Stein JC (1999) A unified theory of underreaction, momen- tum trading, and overreaction in asset markets. The Journal of Fi- nance 54(6):2143–2184, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/0022-1082.00184

    1999

  25. [33]

    Journal of Eco- nomic Perspectives 21(2):109–128, ISSN 0895-3309, URL http://dx.doi

    Hong H, Stein JC (2007) Disagreement and the stock market. Journal of Eco- nomic Perspectives 21(2):109–128, ISSN 0895-3309, URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1257/jep.21.2.109

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW):150:1– 150:27, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3359252

    Jhaver S, Bruckman A, Gilbert E (2019) Does transparency in moderation 32 really matter? user behavior after content removal explanations on reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW):150:1– 150:27, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3359252

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Journal of Fi- nancial Economics 145(2, Part A):273–295, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.10.009

    Jin LJ, Sui P (2022) Asset pricing with return extrapolation. Journal of Fi- nancial Economics 145(2, Part A):273–295, ISSN 0304-405X, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.10.009

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Interdisciplinary Literary Studies 19(1):17–47, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.19.1.0017, publisher: Penn State University Press

    Joshua J (2017) Information bodies: Computational anxiety in neal stephen- son’s snow crash. Interdisciplinary Literary Studies 19(1):17–47, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.19.1.0017, publisher: Penn State University Press

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Service Science 15(4):266–282, ISSN 2164-3962, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/serv.2021.0048

    Junqu´ e de Fortuny E, Zhang Y (2023) Exploring the new frontier: Decentral- ized financial services. Service Science 15(4):266–282, ISSN 2164-3962, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/serv.2021.0048

    2023

  30. [38]

    Econometrica 47(2):263–291, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 1914185

    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision un- der risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 1914185

    1979

  31. [39]

    Kawai D, Cuevas A, Routledge B, Soska K, Zetlin-Jones A, Christin N (2023) Is your digital neighbor a reliable investment advisor? Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 , 3581–3591, WWW ’23 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), ISBN 9781450394161, URL ...

    2023

  32. [40]

    URL https://www.natlawreview.com/article/nft- collection-brave-nft-world-regulatory-review-nfts-part-2

    Kumar SJ, McLaughlim JM, Xie AL, Nicolet-Serra L, M¨ uller A, Rigg C (2022) The nft collection: A brave nft world – a regulatory re- view of nfts (part 2). URL https://www.natlawreview.com/article/nft- collection-brave-nft-world-regulatory-review-nfts-part-2

    2022

  33. [41]

    2110.05352, arXiv:2110.05352 [cs]

    Lee LH, Braud T, Zhou P, Wang L, Xu D, Lin Z, Kumar A, Bermejo C, Hui P (2021) All one needs to know about metaverse: A com- plete survey on technological singularity, virtual ecosystem, and research agenda (arXiv:2110.05352), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2110.05352, ...

    2021 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Management Science 61(3):649–664, ISSN 0025-1909, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc

    Liu YJ, Zhang Z, Zhao L (2015) Speculation spillovers. Management Science 61(3):649–664, ISSN 0025-1909, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc. 2014.1914

    2015

  35. [43]

    The Review of Economic Studies rdad023, ISSN 0034-6527, URL http://dx.doi.org/10

    Maxted P (2023) A macro-finance model with sentiment. The Review of Economic Studies rdad023, ISSN 0034-6527, URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/restud/rdad023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Decision Support Systems 47(3):204–228, ISSN 0167-9236, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.014

    Messinger PR, Stroulia E, Lyons K, Bone M, Niu RH, Smirnov K, Perelgut S (2009) Virtual worlds — past, present, and future: New directions in social computing. Decision Support Systems 47(3):204–228, ISSN 0167-9236, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.014

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    URL https://about.fb

    Meta (2021) The facebook company is now meta. URL https://about.fb. com/news/2021/10/facebook-company-is-now-meta/ . 33

    2021

  38. [46]

    standard

    Minsky HP (1977) The financial instability hypothesis: An interpretation of keynes and an alternative to “standard” theory. Challenge 20(1):20–27, ISSN 0577-5132

    1977

  39. [47]

    Encyclopedia 2(1):486–497, URL http://dx

    Mystakidis S (2022) Metaverse. Encyclopedia 2(1):486–497, URL http://dx. doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2010031

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Scientific Reports 11(11):20902, ISSN 2045-2322, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00053-8

    Nadini M, Alessandretti L, Di Giacinto F, Martino M, Aiello LM, Baronchelli A (2021) Mapping the nft revolution: market trends, trade networks, and visual features. Scientific Reports 11(11):20902, ISSN 2045-2322, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00053-8

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system URL https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    2008

  42. [50]

    The Journal of Finance 58(3):1113–1137, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00560

    Ofek E, Richardson M (2003) Dotcom mania: The rise and fall of internet stock prices. The Journal of Finance 58(3):1113–1137, ISSN 1540-6261, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00560

    2003

  43. [51]

    URL https://decentraland.org/whitepaper.pdf

    Ordano E, Meilich A, Jardi Y, Araoz M (2017) Decentraland a blockchain- based virtual world. URL https://decentraland.org/whitepaper.pdf

    2017

  44. [52]

    Management Science 68(7):4939–4963, ISSN 0025-1909, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4088

    P´ enasse J, Renneboog L (2022) Speculative trading and bubbles: Evidence from the art market. Management Science 68(7):4939–4963, ISSN 0025-1909, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4088

    2022

  45. [53]

    Social Media + Society 7(2):20563051211019004, ISSN 2056-3051, URL http://dx

    Proferes N, Jones N, Gilbert S, Fiesler C, Zimmer M (2021) Studying reddit: A systematic overview of disciplines, approaches, methods, and ethics. Social Media + Society 7(2):20563051211019004, ISSN 2056-3051, URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/20563051211019004

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34(03):1427–1445, ISSN 1041-4347, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2020.2992485

    Qiang J, Qian Z, Li Y, Yuan Y, Wu X (2022) Short text topic modeling techniques, applications, and performance: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34(03):1427–1445, ISSN 1041-4347, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2020.2992485

    2022

  47. [55]

    R¨ oder M, Both A, Hinneburg A (2015) Exploring the space of topic co- herence measures. Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , 399–408, WSDM ’15 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), ISBN 978-1-4503-3317-7, U...

    2015

  48. [56]

    investment contract

    Securities and Exchange Commission (2023) Framework for “investment contract” analysis of digital assets. URL https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/ framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets#

    2023

  49. [57]

    Shelton AK (2010) Defining the lines between virtual and real world pur- chases: Second life sells, but who’s buying? Computers in Human Behavior 26(6):1223–1227, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.019

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , 45–57, WWW ’21 (Asso- 34 ciation for Computing Machinery), ISBN 9781450383127, URL http://dx

    Soska K, Dong JD, Khodaverdian A, Zetlin-Jones A, Routledge B, Christin N (2021) Towards understanding cryptocurrency derivatives:a case study of bitmex. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , 45–57, WWW ’21 (Asso- 34 ciation for Computing Machinery), ISBN 9781450383127, URL...

    2021

  51. [59]

    Information & Communications Technology Law 21(3):221–236, ISSN 1360-0834, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2012.744225

    Stokes R (2012) Virtual money laundering: the case of bitcoin and the linden dollar. Information & Communications Technology Law 21(3):221–236, ISSN 1360-0834, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2012.744225

    2012

  52. [60]

    Last accessed: February 13, 2025

    Torres D (2023) https://www.sfvbj.com/technology/getting-children- hooked-on-nfts. Last accessed: February 13, 2025

    2023

  53. [61]

    Weisberg S (2005) Outliers and Influence, 194–210 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd), ISBN 978-0-471-70409-6, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471704091. ch9

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    Decentraland

    Yin J, Wang J (2014) A dirichlet multinomial mixture model-based approach for short text clustering. Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining 233–242, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1145/2623330.2623715. 35 A Supplementary i...

    2014

  55. [2022]

    peak hype

    The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The grey- colored area shows the 18-month interval surrounding the “peak hype” of 2021 Q4. Discussion about saturation hypothesis This appendix examines the spatial distribution of developed parcels to determine whether ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.