sounding open dataReading the waterlineLive sources are loading. Nothing is filled with placeholder market data.
Loading market readings
⊹⌒∴Cycles and regimes · descriptive
Is Bitcoin return predictability stable through time?
Khuntia and Pattanayak report that linear and nonlinear return dependence changes across rolling Bitcoin samples, consistent with time-varying market efficiency.
Mixed evidence
Khuntia and Pattanayak report that linear and nonlinear return dependence changes across rolling Bitcoin samples, consistent with time-varying market efficiency.
The paper supports time variation, while the exact efficient or inefficient periods depend on tests, windows, data, and later samples.
Literature record
Mixed evidenceWhat the reviewed source and linked counterevidence support.
Bathymark reproduction
Test outline readyThe claim can be retested once a fixed source, window policy, and independence rule are approved.
Live validity
Not monitoredCycle Clock gives current dated context but does not score market efficiency.
where the claim applies
Scope and horizon
Assets
Bitcoin
Venues or data
Paper-specific aggregate price history
Geography
Global Bitcoin market
Sample
Historical rolling windows available to the 2018 study
Horizon
Rolling linear and nonlinear return-dependence tests
source result
What the work reported
The paper reports that Bitcoin market efficiency evolves through time rather than remaining fixed.
structured numbers
This claim record depends on a reported relationship or method, not a single headline number. No summary metric is manufactured.
how the result was made
Method and implementation boundary
Design
Rolling-window tests of linear and nonlinear dependence.
Measures
Bitcoin returns and statistical return-dependence measures.
Reality gap
A detected dependence statistic does not by itself define a cost-aware trading rule.
Assumptions
Rolling windows contain enough observations for the selected dependence tests.
Window choice does not manufacture the apparent regime boundary.
Limits
Efficiency is test-specific and is not one permanent market label.
Overlapping rolling windows do not create independent cycles.
The study predates later derivatives, ETF, custody, and venue structure.
Required reality checks
Predeclare window lengths and dependence tests.
Report sensitivity to venue, price source, and market regime.
Keep statistical predictability separate from executable performance.
What this cannot mean
That Bitcoin is always inefficient or always efficient.
That a historical predictable window will recur on schedule.
That a four-year cycle follows from rolling dependence alone.
source and version trail
The works behind this record
Bathymark stores curated bibliographic facts and its own paraphrase. It does not store the source abstract or full text. Open the original work to inspect the complete analysis.
Changing market structure and predictability weaken any assumption that a small event sample repeats unchanged.
append-only assessment memory
Status history
Mixed evidenceTime variation is source-verified, while efficient-period labels remain test and window dependent.
current Bathymark context
Related live evidence, not a replication
Cycle Clock gives current dated context but does not score market efficiency.
Reviewed 2026-07-13; next review 2026-10-13. The paper record is not a recommendation, forecast, or proof of current profitability. Information, not financial advice.