The Triadic Stress Index (TSI) takes a network index whose four factors were first observed in soil microbiome co-occurrence networks and applies it, without alteration, to the correlation network of financial assets. We test it on five markets spanning 2006-2026 (equities including banking crises and the AI sector, cryptocurrencies, commodities, foreign exchange and sovereign debt), against three independent definitions of a crisis episode, at a fixed alarm budget, out of sample, with block-bootstrap intervals and a Holm correction across the family of tests. The benchmarks are the Absorption Ratio, the industry standard used by MSCI and central banks; the effective rank and the Vendi score, the sharpest spectral measures available; Ollivier-Ricci curvature; and the global and local balance indices of signed correlation networks. Three comparisons favour the index. It carries a per-node decomposition, diag(A^3), naming which asset is carrying the concentration with no parameter to select, and scores 0.97-0.99 against 0.33-0.84 for the only published per-node alternative, whereas spectral attribution must first choose how many components to read and collapses under a standard but wrong choice. Its alarms are the cleanest of anything tested, 4.0% of them with no matching episode against 14.7% for the effective rank and roughly 59% for the Absorption Ratio. And it beats the Absorption Ratio on detection by 0.273 in F1 out of sample, p<0.0005. The remaining comparisons are ties. Against the effective rank and the Vendi score the index ties in every scheme and both samples, and the margin over the Absorption Ratio narrows under the strictest labelling. On real matrices the far simpler node degree reproduces the attribution. A lead-lag analysis puts the peak cross-correlation at zero lag: this is a coincident state index, not a forecast.
This study investigates whether the macroscopic statistical maturity of cryptocurrencies implies dynamical equivalence with traditional equity markets. We analyze high-frequency data (2020--2025) using the Complexity--Entropy Causality Plane (CECP) and directed horizontal visibility graphs (directed HVG) to uncover complex temporal patterns and time-directed structures in the return series. While conventional stylized facts show striking convergence across all assets, structural diagnostics reveal a compelling paradox: cryptocurrencies appear more locally random than the equity benchmark during ordinary periods, yet exhibit significantly stronger directional time-irreversibility around high-visibility return events. The absolute-return results show that large cryptocurrency fluctuations tend to begin abruptly and remain elevated afterward. Separate analyses of positive returns and negative-return magnitudes show that this pattern is shared across cryptocurrencies on the upside but varies across assets on the downside. We conclude that statistical maturity is only skin-deep; the underlying dynamical processes of mature cryptocurrencies remain fundamentally distinct from traditional benchmarks.
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.
Giuseppe Cavaliere, Thomas Mikosch, Anders Rahbek, Frederik Vilandt
This paper develops bootstrap inference for autoregressive conditional duration (ACD) models observed over a fixed calendar span, so that the number of durations is random. We study recursive schemes that either fix the calendar span or the realized event count. For the fixed-count bootstrap, we establish consistency when the duration tail index satisfies $κ\geq1$. When $0<κ<1$, classical consistency fails because the estimator has a mixed-normal limit, but the bootstrap reproduces its conditional Gaussian component. Consequently, basic percentile intervals remain first-order valid and bootstrap $t$-statistics are asymptotically standard normal. Monte Carlo experiments show accurate finite-sample inference across finite- and infinite-mean regimes and robustness to non-exponential innovations. An application to cryptocurrency ETF transaction durations finds strong persistence and illustrates the practical difference between fixed-count and random-count inference.
Every widely followed Bitcoin cycle indicator (Pi Cycle, MVRV, Mayer, Puell) called turns precisely for a decade, then degraded in one sequence: precise, then early, then silent. This is one structural phenomenon. Across the four halving epochs (2011-2026), the per-cycle maxima of five top-calling oscillators decline monotonically while minima end higher, so any threshold calibrated on past cycles must stop firing; short-horizon indicators decay toward zero and several invert sign; yet Bitcoin's time structure stays fixed, with mature-cycle tops 525/546/534 days after their halvings and bottoms 406/364/366 days after their tops. Turns are identified retrospectively by a fixed mechanical rule, not a real-time record. Timing-free nulls put the joint clustering at 5e-6 to 1e-3 across every variant. A harder empirical null (block-bootstrapped paths under the identical rule) never reproduces the top cluster under its deterministic construction (0 of 10,000); the bottom cluster is largely intrinsic to the drawdown process (31-43% of paths), so the evidence concentrates in top phase-alignment. In block height (the exact 210,000-block unit) the top null stays 0 of 10,000 and partial bottom structure emerges; shape and volatility overlays do not improve. A causal power law in time-since-genesis (exponent near 5.6) is the only signal whose sign is stable across mature epochs, replicates on a second source and Ethereum, and whose timing edge over buy-and-hold turns positive in the current cycle (one holdout, suggestive not decisive). We rest nothing on per-epoch significance: a rotation null shows HAC inference over-rejects here (size 0.33 at nominal 0.05; p=0.21). Macro drivers (M2, yield curve) show the same instability and lose a joint horse race. We pre-register falsifiable windows: a 2026 bottom (Oct 5-Nov 16) and a next top 525-546 days after the following halving.
We audit whether candle-based machine-learning models can turn predictions of cryptocurrency extrema or short-horizon outcomes into positive Binance Spot paper policies after assumed costs. Numerical results come from scripted fixed-seed model runs and deterministic simulators; human-supervised AI agents supported the July 20 evidence-integrity revision through literature retrieval, separately tasked critique, artifact reconciliation, documentation, and source packaging, not trading decisions. The strongest later-period evidence, conditional on extensive predecessor search, is negative: an unchanged ten-pair mandatory-daily selector lost 6.72\% over 19 July cycles at an assumed 31-bps completed-cycle cost, with 3 wins and 16 losses. In short model-specific July evaluations, the validation-selected local-minimum policy returned -1.79\%, while the local-maximum sell-to-cash/re-entry policy underperformed continuous holding by 2.80\%; their gross mean advantages of 11.11 and 12.21 bps were below even the 21-bps stress. A Gurgul-inspired, OHLCV-only daily adaptation attained minimum/maximum ROC AUC of 0.874/0.896 but average precision of only 0.134/0.116 and lost 44.30\% over seven cycles, versus -41.20\% for buy-and-hold. A forensic audit also downgraded an earlier One4All "30-day holdout": its dates had influenced prior architecture work, its four-hour outcome horizon was not purged at split boundaries, it used same-close entry, and its raw result directories were absent. Across the tested, mostly exploratory protocols, event-ranking performance did not establish positive executable policy value. Every operational decision remains NO\_TRADE.