Statistikk › Krypto › Unsupported crypto claims
Four crypto claims that have no published evidence behind them
| Claim | What the literature actually contains |
|---|---|
| The four-year halving cycle produces predictable returns | The only open-access event study covering all four halvings reports no numeric abnormal return for any of them and runs no statistical test on its cumulative abnormal returns |
| Extreme funding rates predict a near-term drawdown | The main academic paper on perpetual futures runs no return-predictive regressions on funding at all; its mean signed deviation is indistinguishable from zero |
| Weekend returns differ, before or after the 2024 spot ETFs | No published test in either direction. The most recent comprehensive survey uses weekly returns throughout and never analyses day of week. |
| The CME gap gets filled | No published backing located. The one lead is a paywalled 2021 paper on volume and spreads when CME futures are closed, which is a different question. |
Each row is the result of a search of peer-reviewed journals and serious working papers, not an absence of looking. In each case the claim may still be true. It is simply not established.
The halving cycle, funding rates predicting drawdowns, the weekend effect and the CME gap are repeated constantly. A search of the peer-reviewed and serious working-paper literature turns up no study establishing any of them, in either direction.
Kun for medlemmer
Resten av denne siden er for medlemmer
Below this point there are 5 sections and 6 named sources, roughly 650 words of it. Every figure carries the source it came from and the date the data is from.
Du kan fortsette å se på all statistikk i biblioteket gratis. Innledningen og sammendraget er alltid åpne.