Uncategorized

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies a comprehensive introduction pdf free download

This is possible thanks to cryptocurrency exchanges, which provide a nearly continuous price record for all actively traded cryptocurrencies. Although the resulting exchange rates are highly volatile, they reveal that cryptocurrencies have a non-zero value for those prepared to pay fiat currency in order to purchase them.

Others claim their market value is driven by the speculative bubble; yet, strictly speaking, the bubble is manifested in upward price deviations from the fundamental value see, e. If it is the ease and the speed of transactions, then new transaction technologies and fund transfer systems that greatly improved in the recent decade such as Transferwise and similar systems should have wiped out a big chunk of the cryptocurrency value, yet this does not seem to be the case.

A possible answer may lie in the features that distinguish cryptocurrencies from other assets and payment systems. Privacy, or rather anonymity, is a prominent distinctive feature popping up in most discussions of cryptocurrencies. The value of a cryptocurrency is then effectively a measure of how much users value anonymity of their transactions.

Of course, there may be other factors, for example, fashion users want to use the technology others are talking about , hi-tech appeal the desire to use the most modern technology or curiosity the desire to try something new , among others, but these phenomena appear shorter-lived than the allure of anonymity. A key development in the rise of cryptocurrencies and other cryptoassets has been the emergence of cryptoexchanges where anyone can open accounts and trade cryptoassets both against each other and against fiat currencies.

Above, we highlighted that cryptoexchanges provide extensive cryptocurrency pricing and trading information in the public domain. Academic interest in cryptocurrencies started to soar in see Fig. In and especially in the number of publications grew fast, and in the trend is continuing. Interestingly, academic work focuses much more on the Bitcoin than on the more general topic of cryptocurrencies, although in and in the gap narrowed.

It appears that—apart from the Bitcoin frenzy—there is a growing attention to the general phenomenon of cryptocurrencies. The remainder of this editorial proceeds as follows. In Sect.

Finally, Sect. Cryptocurrencies can be used both as a means of payment and as a financial asset. Glaser et al. With this in mind, it makes sense to evaluate cryptocurrencies as financial assets. The cross-section of cryptocurrency returns has been analyzed in a number of papers.

Cryptocurrencies: market analysis and perspectives

Urquhart shows that Bitcoin returns do not follow random walk, based on which he concludes the Bitcoin market exhibits a significant degree of inefficiency, especially in the early years of existence. Corbet et al. Liu and Tsyvinski investigate whether cryptocurrency pricing bears similarity to stocks: none of the risk factors explaining movements in stock prices applies to cryptocurrencies in their sample.

Moreover, movements in exchange rates, commodity prices, or macroeconomic factors of traditional significance for other assets play little to none role for most cryptocurrencies. The latter invalidates the view on cryptocurrencies as substitutes to monies, or as a store of value like gold , and rather stresses they are assets of their own class.

Cryptocurrency - Wikipedia

The review of the literature in Corbet et al. The relative isolation of cryptocurrencies from more traditional financial assets suggests cryptocurrencies may offer diversification benefits for investors with short investment horizons.

Bouri et al. Interestingly, they provide empirical evidence of the predominant usage of Bitcoins as speculative assets, though this is done on the data on USD transactions only and thus likely reflects the behavior of U. Relatedly, Adhami and Guegan find that similarly to cryptocurrencies, cryptotokens are also a useful diversification device though not a hedge. One way to understand similarities and differences between cryptocurrencies and more traditional financial assets is to estimate relationships known for traditional assets.

They find that Bitcoin trading volume does not affect its returns but detect a positive effect of Bitcoin trading volumes on return volatility. While their focus is mainly on market attention, these results highlight similar forces rule cryptocurrency markets and those for more traditional financial assets, again supporting the view of cryptocurrencies as investment assets.

Footnote The risk of holding cryptocurrencies is discussed in this special issue by Fantazzini and Zimin Cryptocurrency prices may drop dramatically because of a revealed scam or suspected hack, or other hidden problems.

About this Course

As a consequence, a cryptocoin may become illiquid and its value may substantially decline. Fantazzini and Zimin propose a set of models to estimate the risk of default of cryptocurrencies, which is back-tested on 42 digital coins. The authors make an important point in extending the traditional risk analysis to cryptocurrencies and making an attempt to distinguish between market risk and credit risk for them.

The former, as typical in the finance literature, is associated with movements in prices of other assets. The latter is associated in traditional finance with the failure of the counterparty to repay, but as cryptocurrencies presume no repayments, defining credit risk for them is tricky. The authors find, notably, that the market risk of cryptocurrencies is driven by Bitcoin, suggesting some degree of homogeneity in the cryptomarket.

As for the credit risk, the traditional credit scoring models based on the previous month trading volume, the one-year trading volume and the average yearly Google search volume work remarkably well, suggesting indeed a similarity between the newly defined credit risk for cryptocurrencies and the one traditionally used for other asset classes. A large strand of the literature explains market phenomena that work against the neo-classical predictions, from the perspective of unquantifiable risk, or ambiguity.

See a Problem?

Most commonly, ambiguity is associated with the impossibility to assign probability values to events that may or may not occur. In the case of cryptocurrencies, this type of uncertainty may arise for two reasons: 1 the technology is rather complicated and opaque to unsophisticated traders, and 2 the fundamental value of cryptocurrencies is unclear. As we highlighted above, even if it is strictly positive, it is likely to derive from intangible factors and as such is rather uncertain. Dow and da Costa Werlang demonstrate that under pessimism ambiguity aversion uncertainty about fundamentals leads to zero trading in financial markets, yet this does not seem to apply to cryptocurrencies.

In Vinogradov not only does the no-trade outcome depend on the degrees of optimism and pessimism, which may vary, but it also manifests only under high risk in the standard sense. Still, again, although cryptocurrency returns exhibit high volatility, trade volumes are significant. Obtaining information is crucial to reduce uncertainty. These relevant events are effectively announcements of either restrictions and even bans on cryptocurrency usage, or of the widening of the cryptocurrency market.

While we remain largely agnostic regarding what people find when they search for cryptocurrency related terms on the Internet, the events give us an indication of the type of information that actually matters for cryptocurrency investment decisions, and hence for pricing. Uncertainty and attitudes to it are not the only reasons why neoclassical predictions may fail.

Shiller notes that market participants are humans and can make irrational systematic errors contrary to the assumption of rationality. Such errors affect prices and returns of assets, creating market inefficiencies. Studies in behavioral economics highlight inefficiencies, such as under- or over-reactions to information, as causes of market trends and, in extreme cases, of bubbles and crashes. Three features distinguish cryptocurrency markets: investors are non-institutional, risk volatility of returns is high, and the fundamental value is unclear.

Under these conditions behavioral biases should be even more pronounced than in traditional asset markets. In this special issue Haryanto et al. They also find that in different market conditions herding moves along with market trend in the bullish market a positive market return increases herding, while in the bearish market a negative market return has the same effect.

The reverse disposition effect in the bullish market indicates investors exhibit more optimism and expect returns to further grow, which is consistent with the exponential price growth in a bubble in the absence of a clearly defined fundamental value. This lack of clarity regarding the fundamental value is also supported by the asymmetric herding behavior: when the price grows in a bullish market, investors look at other market participants to see whether others also think the price will continue to grow similarly but with the opposite sign for the bearish market.

The contribution by Moosa highlights that the Bitcoin was in a bubble up to the end of The analysis claims that the volume of trading in Bitcoin can be explained predominantly in terms of price dynamics considering past price movements, particularly positive price changes, and that the path of the price is well described by an explosive process. Critiques emphasize cryptocurrencies are not exempt from frauds and scandals. For example, several millions in Bitcoin from the Japanese platform Mt. Moreover, cryptocurrency payments, being largely unregulated, do not restrict any purchases, including those illegal.

Foley et al. On the positive side, the development of the cryptocurrency market contributes to the dynamics of access to finance Adhami et al. Tokens give their buyers a right to use certain services or products of the issuer, or to share profits, in which case they resemble equity. Special cryptoexchanges then serve the secondary market for tokens.

An important distinction between tokens and cryptocurrencies is though that there is a liability or some sort of commitment behind the token, and this liability determines its value. Now that this cryptoasset bears more similarity with traditional assets, one would expect also the main predictions of neoclassical finance to come true.

In fact, in a recent empirical study of cryptotokens, Howell et al. The latter is achieved through voluntary disclosure of information including the operating budget and their business plans , and quality signaling e.

Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies

This is normally done via an ICO, and could be a relevant opportunity for small business, which often experience a gap in funding and miss competences to relate with professional investors Giudici and Paleari This has been widely discussed by practitioners and investors, with a great variety of views. For example, The World Economic Forum White Paper WEF , claims that cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies could increase the worldwide trading volume, moving to better levels of service and lower transaction fees. To this extent, the contribution by Ricci in this special issue considers the geographical network of Bitcoin transactions in order to discover potential relationships between Bitcoin exchange activity among countries and national levels of economic freedom.

The study shows that high levels of freedom to trade internationally, that guarantee low tariffs and facilitate international trade, are strongly connected to the Bitcoin diffusion. On the one hand, the freedom to trade internationally could increase the foreign trade through the use of alternative payment instruments capable of reducing transaction costs like cryptocurrencies , on the other, low capital controls could encourage the use of cryptocurrencies for illegal conduct, such as money laundering.

They posit that there are significant sustainability issues in the cryptocurrency development exceeding potential benefits, that are captured typically by a few people. Therefore, they call for different institutional models with government and public engagement, as to avoid that the market is driven mostly by private money and profit motivations. Growing attention has been paid to cryptocurrencies in the academic literature, discussing whether they are supposed to disrupt the economy or are a speculative bubble which could crash and burn or favor money laundering and criminals.

In support of the first view, it is often argued they meet a market need for a faster and more secure payment and transaction system, disintermediating monopolies, banks and credit cards. Critics, on the other hand, point out that the unstable value of cryptocurrencies make them more a purely speculative asset than a new type of money. The reality is somewhere in between these two positions, with cryptocurrencies performing some useful functions and hence adding economic value, and yet being potentially highly unstable.

The trend is towards a regulation of cryptocurrencies, and more generally of all crypto-assets, and to their increased trading on organized and regulated exchanges. This would go against the original libertarian rationale that originated the Bitcoin but is a necessary step to provide protection for market participants and reduce moral hazard and information asymmetries.

How will future research build on the articles in this special issue and on other recent studies of cryptocurrencies? It is of course always difficult to anticipate substantial future research contributions, especially in relation to such a recent and novel phenomenon like cryptocurrencies. But we would argue that there are a few major issues that deserve continued attention from scholars in finance, economics and related disciplines.

Some recent research already draws attention to the functioning of cryptoexchanges. For example, Gandal et al.

Introduction

Gox Bitcoin exchange; a notable by-product of their research is the finding that suspicious trading on one exchange led to equal price changes on other exchanges, suggesting traders can effectively engage in arbitrage activities across exchanges. Similarly, signs of efficiency are detected in Akyildirim et al. Importantly, in their study information flows and price discovery go from futures to spot markets, in contrast to previous results for traditional assets; a likely explanation is the difference in the type of traders at cryptoexchanges that determine the spot price and both CME and CBOE.

Footnote 13 Yet more has to be learnt about cryptoexchanges. Their open nature distinguishes them from conventional stock exchanges and dealer markets with transactors directly accessing the market rather than relying on brokers as intermediaries.