{"format":{"name":"Bathymark Research Graph","version":"bathymark-research/v0.1.0","status":"publisher-defined","note":"This graph is a Bathymark evidence map, not a certification, consensus score, trading signal, or raw scholarly metadata feed."},"publisher":{"name":"Bathymark","canonical_url":"https://www.bathymark.com"},"scope":{"purpose":"Curated, source-located research claims linked to method limits, Bathymark replication state, and current evidence routes.","reviewed_at":"2026-07-13","bibliographic_metadata_only":true,"abstracts_stored":false,"full_text_stored":false,"automated_claim_extraction":false,"bathymark_replications":0,"live_validity_monitors":0},"chain":["work","version","claim","method","data_code","replication","regime","status","decision","outcome"],"coverage":{"domains":5,"works":12,"claims":13,"relationships":7,"reproduced":0,"liveMonitors":0,"nonPeerReviewedWorks":3},"domains":[{"id":"return_predictors","label":"Returns, factors, and adoption","question":"Which return relationships were actually reported, and over what universe?","description":"Momentum, attention, network activity, size, and factor research, kept separate from a claim that any result is tradable now.","bathymarkRoute":"/picks","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research#return-predictors"},{"id":"market_structure","label":"Liquidity and market structure","question":"How do venue fragmentation, liquidity, and arbitrage constraints shape the market?","description":"Exchange segmentation, return predictability, and liquidity research with venue and sample boundaries left visible.","bathymarkRoute":"/flows","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research#market-structure"},{"id":"stablecoins","label":"Stablecoins and monetary transmission","question":"Where do stablecoin flows connect crypto to Treasury and foreign-exchange markets?","description":"Current working-paper evidence on transmission, with peer-review state and identification assumptions stated plainly.","bathymarkRoute":"/stablecoins","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research#stablecoins"},{"id":"cycles_regimes","label":"Cycles and regimes","question":"Is a recurring market story causal, conditional, or only visible in a small historical sample?","description":"Halving and time-varying efficiency research treated as hypotheses with very small independent-event counts.","bathymarkRoute":"/cycles","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research#cycles-regimes"},{"id":"research_validity","label":"Research validity","question":"Does the result survive selection, multiple testing, implementation, and replication choices?","description":"Backtest-overfitting controls and competing anomaly-replication results that apply before a paper becomes a live claim.","bathymarkRoute":"/sounding","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research#research-validity"}],"works":[{"id":"liu-tsyvinski-2021-risks-returns","title":"Risks and Returns of Cryptocurrency","authors":["Yukun Liu","Aleh Tsyvinski"],"year":2021,"venue":"The Review of Financial Studies","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa113","doi":"10.1093/rfs/hhaa113","externalId":"NBER Working Paper 24877","versionId":"doi-10-1093-rfs-hhaa113","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Journal version reviewed. The NBER record is used only as an accessible version trail.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-crypto-time-series-momentum","claim-crypto-network-factors"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"liu-tsyvinski-wu-2022-common-risk","title":"Common Risk Factors in Cryptocurrency","authors":["Yukun Liu","Aleh Tsyvinski","Xi Wu"],"year":2022,"venue":"The Journal of Finance","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13119","doi":"10.1111/jofi.13119","externalId":null,"versionId":"doi-10-1111-jofi-13119","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Version of record reviewed.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-crypto-market-size-momentum"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"makarov-schoar-2020-arbitrage","title":"Trading and Arbitrage in Cryptocurrency Markets","authors":["Igor Makarov","Antoinette Schoar"],"year":2020,"venue":"Journal of Financial Economics","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.07.001","doi":"10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.07.001","externalId":null,"versionId":"doi-10-1016-j-jfineco-2019-07-001","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Version of record reviewed.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-cross-exchange-arbitrage-segmentation"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"khuntia-pattanayak-2018-adaptive-market","title":"Adaptive Market Hypothesis and Evolving Predictability of Bitcoin","authors":["Sashikanta Khuntia","J. K. Pattanayak"],"year":2018,"venue":"Economics Letters","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.03.005","doi":"10.1016/j.econlet.2018.03.005","externalId":null,"versionId":"doi-10-1016-j-econlet-2018-03-005","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Version of record reviewed.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-bitcoin-efficiency-evolves"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"wei-2018-liquidity-efficiency","title":"Liquidity and Market Efficiency in Cryptocurrencies","authors":["Wang Chun Wei"],"year":2018,"venue":"Economics Letters","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.04.003","doi":"10.1016/j.econlet.2018.04.003","externalId":null,"versionId":"doi-10-1016-j-econlet-2018-04-003","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Version of record reviewed.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-liquidity-and-crypto-efficiency"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"ahmed-aldasoro-2026-stablecoin-safe-assets","title":"Stablecoins and Safe Asset Prices","authors":["Rashad Ahmed","Inaki Aldasoro"],"year":2026,"venue":"BIS Working Papers No 1270","type":"working_paper","peerReviewStatus":"not_peer_reviewed","url":"https://www.bis.org/publ/work1270.htm","doi":null,"externalId":"BIS Working Paper 1270","versionId":"bis-work1270-revision-2026-06","versionLabel":"June 2026 revision","versionNote":"Published May 2025 and revised June 2026. Working-paper status remains visible.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-stablecoin-flows-treasury-yields"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"aldasoro-beltran-grinberg-2026-stablecoin-fx","title":"Stablecoin Flows and Spillovers to FX Markets","authors":["Inaki Aldasoro","Paula Beltran","Federico Grinberg"],"year":2026,"venue":"BIS Working Papers No 1340","type":"working_paper","peerReviewStatus":"not_peer_reviewed","url":"https://www.bis.org/publ/work1340.htm","doi":null,"externalId":"BIS Working Paper 1340","versionId":"bis-work1340-2026-03","versionLabel":"March 2026 working-paper release","versionNote":"Published March 2026. Working-paper status remains visible.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-stablecoin-flows-fx-spillovers"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"bailey-borwein-lopez-zhu-2015-pbo","title":"The Probability of Backtest Overfitting","authors":["David H. Bailey","Jonathan M. Borwein","Marcos Lopez de Prado","Qiji Jim Zhu"],"year":2017,"venue":"Journal of Computational Finance","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.21314/JCF.2016.322","doi":"10.21314/JCF.2016.322","externalId":"SSRN 2326253","versionId":"doi-10-21314-jcf-2016-322","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Journal version of record reviewed. The SSRN identifier remains a public version trail.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-backtest-overfitting-probability"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"bailey-lopez-2014-deflated-sharpe","title":"The Deflated Sharpe Ratio: Correcting for Selection Bias, Backtest Overfitting and Non-Normality","authors":["David H. Bailey","Marcos Lopez de Prado"],"year":2014,"venue":"The Journal of Portfolio Management and SSRN record","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2014.40.5.094","doi":"10.3905/jpm.2014.40.5.094","externalId":"SSRN 2460551","versionId":"doi-10-3905-jpm-2014-40-5-094","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Journal version of record reviewed. The SSRN identifier remains a public version trail.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-deflated-sharpe-ratio"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"hou-xue-zhang-2020-replicating-anomalies","title":"Replicating Anomalies","authors":["Kewei Hou","Chen Xue","Lu Zhang"],"year":2020,"venue":"The Review of Financial Studies","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhy131","doi":"10.1093/rfs/hhy131","externalId":null,"versionId":"doi-10-1093-rfs-hhy131","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Version of record reviewed.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-financial-anomaly-replication"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"jensen-kelly-pedersen-2023-replication-crisis","title":"Is There a Replication Crisis in Finance?","authors":["Theis Ingerslev Jensen","Bryan T. Kelly","Lasse Heje Pedersen"],"year":2023,"venue":"The Journal of Finance","type":"journal_article","peerReviewStatus":"peer_reviewed","url":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13249","doi":"10.1111/jofi.13249","externalId":"NBER Working Paper 28432","versionId":"doi-10-1111-jofi-13249","versionLabel":"Journal version of record","versionNote":"Journal version reviewed, with the NBER record retained as a version trail.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-factor-replication-counterevidence"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}},{"id":"virtonen-2025-halving-synthetic-control","title":"Estimating the Impact of the Bitcoin Halving on Its Price Using Synthetic Control","authors":["Vladislav Virtonen"],"year":2025,"venue":"arXiv","type":"preprint","peerReviewStatus":"not_peer_reviewed","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05512","doi":null,"externalId":"arXiv:2511.05512","versionId":"arxiv-2511-05512-v1","versionLabel":"arXiv version 1, submitted 25 October 2025","versionNote":"Preprint reviewed. No peer-reviewed version or independent replication is recorded.","metadataVerifiedAt":"2026-07-13","claimIds":["claim-bitcoin-halving-causal-evidence"],"storagePolicy":{"metadata":"curated_bibliographic_record","abstract":"not_stored","fullText":"not_stored"}}],"claims":[{"id":"claim-crypto-time-series-momentum","slug":"crypto-time-series-momentum","domainId":"return_predictors","question":"Does time-series momentum predict cryptocurrency returns?","conclusion":"Liu and Tsyvinski report a strong time-series momentum relationship and attention-based return predictability for Bitcoin, XRP, and Ethereum in their historical study.","claimType":"predictive","literatureStatus":"source_reviewed","statusReason":"The result is present in the peer-reviewed source. Bathymark has not reproduced the portfolio construction or tested post-publication decay.","scope":{"assets":"Bitcoin, XRP, and Ethereum","venues":"Paper-specific market data aggregation","geography":"Global crypto markets","samplePeriod":"Historical samples ending before the 2021 journal publication","horizon":"Paper-specific weekly return horizons"},"method":{"design":"Predictive regressions over lagged cryptocurrency returns and investor-attention proxies.","measures":"Cryptocurrency returns, lagged returns, and crypto-specific attention proxies.","implementation":"The paper result is not yet translated into a fee, spread, slippage, funding, or capacity-aware Bathymark strategy test."},"originalResult":"The source reports strong time-series momentum and attention-based return predictability.","reportedMetrics":[],"assumptions":["The source price histories and return construction are representative of the stated assets.","The tested lags were specified and interpreted without treating overlapping observations as independent cycles."],"limitations":["A predictive coefficient is not a guaranteed or directly executable return.","The journal result predates several major venue, custody, leverage, and market-structure changes.","Fees, spreads, taxes, borrow, funding, and market impact can remove an apparent edge."],"realityChecks":["Rebuild the exact signal from point-in-time data.","Run walk-forward and post-publication tests across distinct venues and regimes.","Apply multiple-testing and realistic implementation-cost controls."],"falsifier":"A preregistered post-publication test with the same signal definition fails after realistic costs across the minimum declared independent regime sample.","cannotMean":["That momentum works for every token, venue, horizon, or market regime.","That recent positive returns are a buy instruction.","That Bathymark currently operates a validated momentum strategy."],"workIds":["liu-tsyvinski-2021-risks-returns"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"liu-tsyvinski-2021-risks-returns","locator":"Abstract","supports":"Time-series momentum and investor-attention return-predictability findings."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"test_outline_ready","replicationNote":"The source claim and minimum reality checks are specified. No Bathymark result has been computed.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Signal Lab shows current market evidence, not a replication of this paper.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/picks","label":"Signal Lab","role":"Current asset evidence"},{"href":"/markets","label":"Markets","role":"Current price and liquidity context"},{"href":"/cycles","label":"Cycle Clock","role":"Current regime context"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"source_reviewed","note":"Primary journal claim verified; Bathymark replication and live validity remain untested.","workIds":["liu-tsyvinski-2021-risks-returns"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-10-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/crypto-time-series-momentum"},{"id":"claim-crypto-network-factors","slug":"crypto-network-factors","domainId":"return_predictors","question":"Are crypto returns linked to network adoption rather than production costs?","conclusion":"The source study reports exposure to its cryptocurrency network-factor construction and no exposure to its production-factor construction.","claimType":"predictive","literatureStatus":"conditional","statusReason":"The result depends on the paper's definitions of user adoption, production costs, assets, and sample. A live network metric is not automatically the same factor.","scope":{"assets":"Bitcoin, XRP, and Ethereum","venues":"Paper-specific market and network data","geography":"Global crypto markets","samplePeriod":"Historical samples ending before the 2021 journal publication","horizon":"Paper-specific return horizons"},"method":{"design":"Factor-exposure and predictive-return tests.","measures":"Network variables intended to proxy for adoption and production variables intended to proxy for mining costs.","implementation":"Bathymark has not rebuilt the paper's factor definitions from point-in-time source vintages."},"originalResult":"The paper reports return exposure to network factors, but not to its production-factor proxies.","reportedMetrics":[],"assumptions":["The selected network variables are useful adoption proxies rather than only activity or speculation proxies.","The production variables capture the relevant cost channel for each covered asset."],"limitations":["Active addresses, transactions, fees, and supply each have different semantics and manipulation risks.","A relationship found for three assets cannot be generalized to every chain or token design.","Exposure is not proof that network growth causes a future price move."],"realityChecks":["Map every factor input to the Bathymark metric dictionary before testing.","Separate user activity, transfer activity, fees, and token-price effects.","Retest on assets with different consensus and token-demand mechanisms."],"falsifier":"A faithful reconstruction cannot reproduce the reported factor exposure, or updated samples show the exposure is unstable across assets and definitions.","cannotMean":["That more transactions guarantee higher returns.","That mining cost creates a price floor.","That one on-chain activity number measures adoption by people."],"workIds":["liu-tsyvinski-2021-risks-returns"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"liu-tsyvinski-2021-risks-returns","locator":"Abstract","supports":"Network-factor exposure and the reported absence of production-factor exposure."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_started","replicationNote":"A point-in-time factor specification and source-vintage plan are still required.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Current network instruments are related observations, not this paper's factor test.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/almanac","label":"Almanac","role":"Current network instruments"},{"href":"/chains","label":"Chains","role":"Current chain context"},{"href":"/methodology/metrics","label":"Metric dictionary","role":"Semantic definitions"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"conditional","note":"Primary journal claim verified, conditional on the paper's factor definitions and sample.","workIds":["liu-tsyvinski-2021-risks-returns"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-10-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/crypto-network-factors"},{"id":"claim-crypto-market-size-momentum","slug":"crypto-market-size-momentum-factors","domainId":"return_predictors","question":"Do market, size, and momentum factors organize cryptocurrency returns?","conclusion":"Liu, Tsyvinski, and Wu report that cryptocurrency market, size, and momentum factors capture cross-sectional expected returns in their study universe.","claimType":"predictive","literatureStatus":"conditional","statusReason":"The peer-reviewed result is source-verified, but investability depends on universe construction, delistings, weighting, turnover, and costs.","scope":{"assets":"The paper's broad cross-section of cryptocurrencies","venues":"Paper-specific aggregated market data","geography":"Global crypto markets","samplePeriod":"The historical sample defined in the source paper","horizon":"Cross-sectional portfolio return horizons defined in the paper"},"method":{"design":"Characteristic-sorted long-short portfolios and a cryptocurrency three-factor model.","measures":"Market return, market capitalization, momentum, and ten paper-defined characteristics.","implementation":"No Bathymark reconstruction yet includes point-in-time listings, delistings, borrow, turnover, fees, or venue capacity."},"originalResult":"The paper reports that ten characteristic strategies are accounted for by its cryptocurrency three-factor model.","reportedMetrics":[{"id":"metric-characteristics-tested","label":"Characteristic strategies reported","value":10,"unit":"strategies","kind":"sample","qualifier":"The paper reports ten characteristic-sorted strategies accounted for by its three-factor model.","workId":"liu-tsyvinski-wu-2022-common-risk","locator":"Abstract"}],"assumptions":["The historical asset universe is free of survivorship and look-ahead bias.","The long and short legs were available at the stated portfolio formation times."],"limitations":["Factor explanation is not the same as an implementable strategy.","Small-token results can be dominated by thin markets, stale prices, and unavailable shorting.","A factor model can fit one sample and decay after publication."],"realityChecks":["Use a point-in-time investable universe with delistings preserved.","Report equal-weighted and liquidity-aware results separately.","Apply cost, capacity, multiple-testing, and post-publication checks."],"falsifier":"A source-faithful reconstruction fails, or the factor returns disappear under point-in-time universe and realistic implementation constraints.","cannotMean":["That small tokens should outperform now.","That a high backtest return is available to a real trader.","That every crypto characteristic is an independent source of return."],"workIds":["liu-tsyvinski-wu-2022-common-risk"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"liu-tsyvinski-wu-2022-common-risk","locator":"Abstract","supports":"Market, size, and momentum factor result plus the ten characteristic strategies."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_started","replicationNote":"The investable-universe and execution specification remain open.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Signal Lab is a current evidence surface, not this paper's factor portfolio.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/picks","label":"Signal Lab","role":"Current cross-asset evidence"},{"href":"/market-lab","label":"Market Lab","role":"Current market instruments"},{"href":"/methodology","label":"Methodology","role":"Bathymark evidence rules"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"conditional","note":"Primary journal claim verified; implementability and post-publication validity remain untested.","workIds":["liu-tsyvinski-wu-2022-common-risk"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-10-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/crypto-market-size-momentum-factors"},{"id":"claim-cross-exchange-arbitrage-segmentation","slug":"cross-exchange-arbitrage-segmentation","domainId":"market_structure","question":"Can the same cryptocurrency trade at persistent price gaps across venues and countries?","conclusion":"Makarov and Schoar document large recurrent cross-exchange price deviations, with larger gaps across countries and evidence consistent with constrained arbitrage capital.","claimType":"mechanistic","literatureStatus":"source_reviewed","statusReason":"The result is clear in the peer-reviewed historical study, but the venue set and market structure have changed since its 2017 to 2018 sample.","scope":{"assets":"Bitcoin and additional cryptocurrencies examined by the paper","venues":"34 exchanges","geography":"19 countries","samplePeriod":"1 January 2017 to 28 February 2018","horizon":"Transaction-level and exchange-level price deviations"},"method":{"design":"Cross-exchange price comparison, regional arbitrage indices, and signed-volume decomposition.","measures":"Prices, signed volume, common price components, and exchange-specific deviations.","implementation":"Observed price gaps are not net arbitrage returns until transfer, funding, custody, capital-control, fee, and execution constraints are modeled."},"originalResult":"The paper reports larger price deviations across countries than within countries and links their behavior to limits on arbitrage capital.","reportedMetrics":[{"id":"metric-exchange-count","label":"Exchanges in study","value":34,"unit":"exchanges","kind":"sample","qualifier":"Transaction-level study coverage.","workId":"makarov-schoar-2020-arbitrage","locator":"Data and study description"},{"id":"metric-country-count","label":"Countries in study","value":19,"unit":"countries","kind":"sample","qualifier":"Country coverage in the historical exchange panel.","workId":"makarov-schoar-2020-arbitrage","locator":"Data and study description"}],"assumptions":["Venue price and volume records are comparable enough for the stated decomposition.","Regional premia are interpreted with the capital and market-access constraints of the sample period."],"limitations":["The source used historical proprietary exchange data and does not establish today's gaps.","A displayed spread may be impossible to capture because capital, banking, inventory, or withdrawals are constrained.","Exchange failure and counterparty risk are not represented by a quoted price alone."],"realityChecks":["Retest on current venues with synchronized timestamps and withdrawal state.","Subtract all fees, funding, transfer delay, slippage, and capital costs.","Keep country, venue, asset, and stablecoin quote currency separate."],"falsifier":"A comparable current multi-venue sample shows no persistent deviations beyond executable costs and timing noise.","cannotMean":["That a visible premium is risk-free profit.","That one venue price represents the global market.","That historical country segmentation has the same cause or size today."],"workIds":["makarov-schoar-2020-arbitrage"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"makarov-schoar-2020-arbitrage","locator":"Abstract and study description","supports":"Recurrent cross-exchange deviations, regional segmentation, and constrained-arbitrage interpretation."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_started","replicationNote":"Bathymark does not yet retain synchronized order-book and withdrawal-state history across venues.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Current premium views are related market context, not a paper replication.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/flows","label":"Market Flows","role":"Current cross-venue premium context"},{"href":"/markets","label":"Markets","role":"Current market board"},{"href":"/perps","label":"Leverage","role":"Current funding and open-interest context"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"source_reviewed","note":"Historical journal result verified; current venue validity is not monitored.","workIds":["makarov-schoar-2020-arbitrage"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-10-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/cross-exchange-arbitrage-segmentation"},{"id":"claim-bitcoin-efficiency-evolves","slug":"bitcoin-market-efficiency-evolves","domainId":"cycles_regimes","question":"Is Bitcoin return predictability stable through time?","conclusion":"Khuntia and Pattanayak report that linear and nonlinear return dependence changes across rolling Bitcoin samples, consistent with time-varying market efficiency.","claimType":"descriptive","literatureStatus":"mixed","statusReason":"The paper supports time variation, while the exact efficient or inefficient periods depend on tests, windows, data, and later samples.","scope":{"assets":"Bitcoin","venues":"Paper-specific aggregate price history","geography":"Global Bitcoin market","samplePeriod":"Historical rolling windows available to the 2018 study","horizon":"Rolling linear and nonlinear return-dependence tests"},"method":{"design":"Rolling-window tests of linear and nonlinear dependence.","measures":"Bitcoin returns and statistical return-dependence measures.","implementation":"A detected dependence statistic does not by itself define a cost-aware trading rule."},"originalResult":"The paper reports that Bitcoin market efficiency evolves through time rather than remaining fixed.","reportedMetrics":[],"assumptions":["Rolling windows contain enough observations for the selected dependence tests.","Window choice does not manufacture the apparent regime boundary."],"limitations":["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."],"realityChecks":["Predeclare window lengths and dependence tests.","Report sensitivity to venue, price source, and market regime.","Keep statistical predictability separate from executable performance."],"falsifier":"Multiple preregistered tests on updated, source-comparable samples show stable results with no material time variation.","cannotMean":["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."],"workIds":["khuntia-pattanayak-2018-adaptive-market"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"khuntia-pattanayak-2018-adaptive-market","locator":"Highlights and abstract","supports":"Rolling-window evidence of time-varying linear and nonlinear return dependence."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"test_outline_ready","replicationNote":"The claim can be retested once a fixed source, window policy, and independence rule are approved.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Cycle Clock gives current dated context but does not score market efficiency.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/cycles","label":"Cycle Clock","role":"Current cycle context"},{"href":"/markets/bitcoin","label":"Bitcoin market read","role":"Current market evidence"},{"href":"/evidence-ledger","label":"Evidence Ledger","role":"Prospective test memory"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"mixed","note":"Time variation is source-verified, while efficient-period labels remain test and window dependent.","workIds":["khuntia-pattanayak-2018-adaptive-market"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-10-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/bitcoin-market-efficiency-evolves"},{"id":"claim-liquidity-and-crypto-efficiency","slug":"liquidity-and-crypto-market-efficiency","domainId":"market_structure","question":"Are more liquid cryptocurrencies less return-predictable?","conclusion":"Wei reports that return predictability and volatility were lower among more liquid cryptocurrencies in a 456-asset cross-section.","claimType":"descriptive","literatureStatus":"conditional","statusReason":"The peer-reviewed result is source-verified, but it uses aggregate 2017 data and an Amihud-style liquidity proxy rather than executable depth.","scope":{"assets":"456 cryptocurrencies","venues":"CoinMarketCap aggregate market data","geography":"Global aggregate markets","samplePeriod":"2017 study sample","horizon":"Cross-sectional return-predictability and liquidity tests"},"method":{"design":"Liquidity-sorted cross-section with market-efficiency tests.","measures":"Amihud illiquidity, return dependence, Hurst exponent, and volatility.","implementation":"The liquidity proxy uses price and volume, not order-book depth or guaranteed executable size."},"originalResult":"The source reports lower return predictability and lower volatility among more liquid cryptocurrencies, with no illiquidity premium in its sample.","reportedMetrics":[{"id":"metric-asset-count","label":"Cryptocurrencies examined","value":456,"unit":"assets","kind":"sample","qualifier":"Cross-sectional study universe.","workId":"wei-2018-liquidity-efficiency","locator":"Highlights and abstract"}],"assumptions":["Aggregate price and volume data are sufficiently comparable across the 456 assets.","The chosen illiquidity proxy represents the relevant trading constraint."],"limitations":["Reported volume can differ from executable depth and can contain venue-quality problems.","One 2017 cross-section does not establish a permanent causal relation.","The paper's no-illiquidity-premium result is sample- and method-specific."],"realityChecks":["Compare volume-based illiquidity with order-book and slippage measures.","Use current point-in-time universes with venue-quality filters.","Test direction, nonlinearity, and regime dependence separately."],"falsifier":"Updated, venue-aware tests show no robust relation between liquidity and the selected efficiency measures after data-quality controls.","cannotMean":["That high volume guarantees easy exit.","That illiquid assets must earn more or less.","That a liquidity ranking is a return forecast."],"workIds":["wei-2018-liquidity-efficiency"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"wei-2018-liquidity-efficiency","locator":"Highlights, abstract, methodology, and results summary","supports":"Asset count, liquidity proxy, lower predictability, lower volatility, and no reported illiquidity premium."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"test_outline_ready","replicationNote":"The next step is a proxy crosswalk from volume-based illiquidity to Bathymark depth evidence.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Current liquidity pages expose related values, but no live efficiency test is running.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/markets","label":"Markets","role":"Current market and volume context"},{"href":"/chains","label":"Chains","role":"Current DeFi depth context"},{"href":"/protocols","label":"Protocols","role":"Current venue depth context"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"conditional","note":"Primary journal result verified, conditional on the aggregate data and volume-based liquidity proxy.","workIds":["wei-2018-liquidity-efficiency"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-10-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/liquidity-and-crypto-market-efficiency"},{"id":"claim-stablecoin-flows-treasury-yields","slug":"stablecoin-flows-and-treasury-yields","domainId":"stablecoins","question":"Can stablecoin inflows affect short-term U.S. Treasury yields?","conclusion":"A revised 2026 BIS working paper estimates that a $3.5 billion stablecoin inflow lowers three-month Treasury-bill yields on impact and more over the following days.","claimType":"causal","literatureStatus":"working_paper","statusReason":"The paper uses an instrumental-variable design and a current sample, but it remains a working paper and Bathymark has not reproduced the identification or data construction.","scope":{"assets":"Six major U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins in the paper's aggregate","venues":"Stablecoin market-cap and U.S. Treasury market data","geography":"United States and global stablecoin markets","samplePeriod":"January 2021 to March 2026","horizon":"Impact through roughly two weeks after a flow shock"},"method":{"design":"Local projections with a granular instrumental variable based on token-chain flow variation.","measures":"Five-day stablecoin flows and three-month Treasury-bill yield changes.","implementation":"Market-cap change is used as a flow proxy and must not be relabeled as a directly observed subscription ledger."},"originalResult":"The revised paper reports that a $3.5 billion inflow lowers the three-month bill yield by 0.71 basis points on impact and by up to about 4 basis points within 10 days.","reportedMetrics":[{"id":"metric-stablecoin-flow-shock","label":"Stablecoin inflow shock","value":3500000000,"unit":"USD","kind":"result","qualifier":"Two-standard-deviation flow shock in the revised working paper.","workId":"ahmed-aldasoro-2026-stablecoin-safe-assets","locator":"Summary and abstract"},{"id":"metric-tbill-impact","label":"Three-month bill yield effect on impact","value":-0.71,"unit":"basis points","kind":"result","qualifier":"Estimated impact response to the stated stablecoin flow shock.","workId":"ahmed-aldasoro-2026-stablecoin-safe-assets","locator":"Summary and abstract"},{"id":"metric-tbill-ten-day-effect","label":"Three-month bill yield effect within ten days","value":-4,"unit":"basis points","kind":"result","qualifier":"Approximate maximum effect reported within ten days.","workId":"ahmed-aldasoro-2026-stablecoin-safe-assets","locator":"Summary and findings"}],"assumptions":["The instrument affects Treasury yields through stablecoin flows rather than an omitted common shock.","Aggregate market-cap changes adequately proxy the stablecoin flow channel used in the model."],"limitations":["This is not yet a peer-reviewed result.","Stablecoin market-cap change can combine issuance, redemption, price, classification, and data-revision effects.","A market-level estimate does not prove the reserve purchases of any single issuer."],"realityChecks":["Track working-paper revisions and any journal version.","Reconcile the aggregate with issuer-level reserve and issuance receipts where rights permit.","Retest the state dependence around Treasury-market stress."],"falsifier":"A later corrected or peer-reviewed version withdraws the estimate, or an independent reconstruction fails the identification and robustness checks.","cannotMean":["That every stablecoin inflow buys Treasury bills immediately.","That stablecoin growth guarantees lower rates.","That a holder can infer an issuer's reserve state from the aggregate estimate."],"workIds":["ahmed-aldasoro-2026-stablecoin-safe-assets"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"ahmed-aldasoro-2026-stablecoin-safe-assets","locator":"Summary, contribution, findings, and abstract","supports":"Sample dates, identification design, flow shock, and Treasury-yield estimates."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_started","replicationNote":"The paper's instrument and underlying flow panel are not available in Bathymark's current open-data stack.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Ballast tracks current stablecoin market value and stress, not Treasury-yield causality.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/stablecoins","label":"Stablecoins","role":"Current stablecoin market evidence"},{"href":"/ballast","label":"Cash Layer","role":"Current aggregate cash-layer context"},{"href":"/flows","label":"Market Flows","role":"Current market transmission context"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"working_paper","note":"June 2026 revision verified; peer review and independent replication remain absent.","workIds":["ahmed-aldasoro-2026-stablecoin-safe-assets"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-09-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/stablecoin-flows-and-treasury-yields"},{"id":"claim-stablecoin-flows-fx-spillovers","slug":"stablecoin-flows-and-fx-spillovers","domainId":"stablecoins","question":"Can stablecoin demand spill into local currencies and dollar funding markets?","conclusion":"A 2026 BIS working paper reports persistent stablecoin-versus-FX parity gaps and estimates spillovers from exogenous stablecoin demand into local exchange rates and dollar funding costs.","claimType":"causal","literatureStatus":"working_paper","statusReason":"The result is current and source-verified, but it remains a working paper with a specialized exchange panel and instrumental-variable design.","scope":{"assets":"Four major U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoins","venues":"64 exchanges","geography":"27 fiat currencies","samplePeriod":"2021 to 2025","horizon":"Dynamic responses after stablecoin flow shocks"},"method":{"design":"Exchange-level parity-gap measurement plus an instrumental-variable model of stablecoin flow shocks.","measures":"Net stablecoin inflows, stablecoin-FX parity deviations, spot exchange rates, and covered-interest-parity deviations.","implementation":"The study's parity gap is a cross-market measure, not an immediately executable consumer exchange quote."},"originalResult":"The paper estimates that a 1 percent exogenous net-inflow increase raises parity deviations by about 40 basis points and transmits into local currency and dollar-funding markets.","reportedMetrics":[{"id":"metric-fx-stablecoin-count","label":"Stablecoins examined","value":4,"unit":"stablecoins","kind":"sample","qualifier":"Major U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoins in the study.","workId":"aldasoro-beltran-grinberg-2026-stablecoin-fx","locator":"Summary and abstract"},{"id":"metric-fx-currency-count","label":"Fiat currencies examined","value":27,"unit":"currencies","kind":"sample","qualifier":"Fiat-currency coverage in the exchange panel.","workId":"aldasoro-beltran-grinberg-2026-stablecoin-fx","locator":"Summary and abstract"},{"id":"metric-fx-exchange-count","label":"Exchanges examined","value":64,"unit":"exchanges","kind":"sample","qualifier":"Exchange coverage in the study.","workId":"aldasoro-beltran-grinberg-2026-stablecoin-fx","locator":"Summary"},{"id":"metric-fx-parity-response","label":"Parity-deviation response","value":40,"unit":"basis points per 1 percent inflow shock","kind":"result","qualifier":"Estimated response to a 1 percent exogenous increase in net stablecoin inflows.","workId":"aldasoro-beltran-grinberg-2026-stablecoin-fx","locator":"Findings and abstract"}],"assumptions":["The instrument isolates idiosyncratic stablecoin-demand shocks from common macro and crypto shocks.","Exchange, fiat, and stablecoin panels are comparable after the paper's controls."],"limitations":["This is not yet a peer-reviewed result.","The estimate is an average over selected currencies, stablecoins, venues, and dates.","Parity gaps can reflect banking access, fees, capital controls, latency, and counterparty risk."],"realityChecks":["Keep each fiat currency, stablecoin, and venue visible in any replication.","Separate price gaps from executable transfer and funding costs.","Monitor revisions and independent replications."],"falsifier":"A later version withdraws the causal estimate, or independent tests cannot reproduce the spillover after matching the instrument and panel construction.","cannotMean":["That stablecoins replace the foreign-exchange market.","That every local-currency move is caused by crypto demand.","That a parity gap is a free arbitrage."],"workIds":["aldasoro-beltran-grinberg-2026-stablecoin-fx"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"aldasoro-beltran-grinberg-2026-stablecoin-fx","locator":"Focus, contribution, findings, and abstract","supports":"Panel coverage, identification design, parity gaps, and spillover estimates."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_started","replicationNote":"The required exchange-by-fiat panel is outside Bathymark's current open-data coverage.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Current premium and stablecoin pages provide adjacent evidence only.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/stablecoins","label":"Stablecoins","role":"Current stablecoin evidence"},{"href":"/flows","label":"Market Flows","role":"Current cross-venue premium context"},{"href":"/stablecoins/memory","label":"Depeg Memory","role":"Historical fixed-reference stress"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"working_paper","note":"March 2026 working-paper claims verified; peer review and independent replication remain absent.","workIds":["aldasoro-beltran-grinberg-2026-stablecoin-fx"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-09-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/stablecoin-flows-and-fx-spillovers"},{"id":"claim-backtest-overfitting-probability","slug":"probability-of-backtest-overfitting","domainId":"research_validity","question":"Is a conventional train-test holdout enough for investment backtests?","conclusion":"Bailey and coauthors argue that ordinary holdouts can be unreliable after many strategy trials and propose combinatorially symmetric cross-validation to estimate overfitting probability.","claimType":"methodological","literatureStatus":"method_guardrail","statusReason":"Bathymark uses this as a testing warning, not as proof that a particular strategy is overfit before its trial history and specification are inspected.","scope":{"assets":"General investment strategies","venues":"Any historically simulated market","geography":"Not asset-specific","samplePeriod":"Methodological, sample chosen by the test under review","horizon":"Backtest selection and out-of-sample degradation"},"method":{"design":"Combinatorially symmetric cross-validation across strategy configurations.","measures":"In-sample ranking, out-of-sample ranking, and probability of backtest overfitting.","implementation":"The method requires the tested strategy variants and trial family, not only the winning backtest."},"originalResult":"The paper presents a numerical framework for estimating the probability that a selected investment backtest is overfit.","reportedMetrics":[],"assumptions":["The candidate trials being compared are recorded rather than hidden after selection.","The return history can be partitioned without violating the intended time structure."],"limitations":["No one diagnostic proves a strategy valid.","A low estimated overfitting probability does not solve data leakage, bad prices, or unrealistic execution.","The journal method does not replace inspecting the exact trial family and dependence structure of the backtest under review."],"realityChecks":["Log every material strategy trial and parameter family.","Add walk-forward, embargo, cost, and capacity checks.","Keep selection diagnostics beside the exact backtest code and data version."],"falsifier":"The method is implemented incorrectly for the dependence structure or trial family, making its probability estimate inapplicable to the tested strategy.","cannotMean":["That every backtest is overfit.","That passing one cross-validation diagnostic proves future profitability.","That hidden trial history can be reconstructed from the winning curve."],"workIds":["bailey-borwein-lopez-zhu-2015-pbo"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"bailey-borwein-lopez-zhu-2015-pbo","locator":"Abstract","supports":"Holdout limitation and combinatorially symmetric cross-validation proposal."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_applicable","replicationNote":"This is a method gate to implement, not a market effect to reproduce as a live signal.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Method compliance belongs in each future replication receipt.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/sounding","label":"SOUNDING Method","role":"Precommitment workflow"},{"href":"/evidence-ledger","label":"Evidence Ledger","role":"Prospective record"},{"href":"/log","label":"Public Record","role":"Outcome and correction memory"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"method_guardrail","note":"Public method record verified and adopted as a future validation requirement, not a market result.","workIds":["bailey-borwein-lopez-zhu-2015-pbo"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2027-01-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/probability-of-backtest-overfitting"},{"id":"claim-deflated-sharpe-ratio","slug":"deflated-sharpe-ratio","domainId":"research_validity","question":"How should a reported Sharpe ratio change after selection and non-normality?","conclusion":"Bailey and Lopez de Prado propose the Deflated Sharpe Ratio to adjust performance evidence for multiple testing and non-normal return distributions.","claimType":"methodological","literatureStatus":"method_guardrail","statusReason":"Bathymark treats the statistic as one control in a wider validation packet, not as a universal quality score.","scope":{"assets":"General investment strategies","venues":"Any return series with a stated trial family","geography":"Not asset-specific","samplePeriod":"Methodological, sample chosen by the test under review","horizon":"Historical performance assessment"},"method":{"design":"A Sharpe-ratio adjustment for selection bias, repeated testing, skewness, and kurtosis.","measures":"Observed Sharpe ratio, number and dependence of trials, and non-normal return moments.","implementation":"A valid calculation needs the trial count or defensible trial-family estimate plus the complete return series."},"originalResult":"The paper introduces a corrected performance statistic intended to distinguish evidence from selection-driven inflation.","reportedMetrics":[],"assumptions":["The trial family and dependence between trials are represented honestly.","Return moments are estimated from an adequate and relevant sample."],"limitations":["The statistic does not model market impact, capacity, operational failure, or legal availability.","A result can pass the statistic and still fail out of sample.","An unknown trial count weakens the adjustment."],"realityChecks":["Publish the trial family beside the statistic.","Report unadjusted and adjusted evidence together.","Keep costs, capacity, drawdowns, and walk-forward results as separate gates."],"falsifier":"The required trial or return-distribution inputs are absent, making a displayed Deflated Sharpe Ratio unsupported.","cannotMean":["That one adjusted ratio proves a strategy is good.","That non-normal returns become harmless after adjustment.","That an analyst may omit unsuccessful trials."],"workIds":["bailey-lopez-2014-deflated-sharpe"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"bailey-lopez-2014-deflated-sharpe","locator":"Abstract","supports":"Selection-bias, multiple-testing, and non-normal-return adjustments."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_applicable","replicationNote":"This belongs in future replication QA rather than a live market monitor.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"No public Bathymark strategy currently reports this statistic.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/sounding","label":"SOUNDING Method","role":"Method workflow"},{"href":"/methodology","label":"Methodology","role":"Current calculation rules"},{"href":"/log","label":"Public Record","role":"Observed outcomes"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"method_guardrail","note":"Method claim verified and retained as one future replication control, not a standalone truth score.","workIds":["bailey-lopez-2014-deflated-sharpe"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2027-01-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/deflated-sharpe-ratio"},{"id":"claim-financial-anomaly-replication","slug":"financial-anomaly-replication-failures","domainId":"research_validity","question":"How many published return anomalies survive stricter replication choices?","conclusion":"Hou, Xue, and Zhang report that most of 452 equity anomalies fail under their microcap, weighting, and multiple-testing controls, with smaller magnitudes among those that survive.","claimType":"methodological","literatureStatus":"disputed","statusReason":"The result is peer reviewed, but later peer-reviewed work reaches a different broad conclusion using a Bayesian factor-replication framework.","scope":{"assets":"U.S. equities, not cryptocurrencies","venues":"CRSP and Compustat research universe","geography":"United States","samplePeriod":"January 1967 to December 2016","horizon":"Cross-sectional anomaly portfolio tests"},"method":{"design":"Replication of 452 anomaly variables under common portfolio and regression procedures.","measures":"Value- and equal-weighted returns, microcap controls, t-statistics, and multiple-testing thresholds.","implementation":"The finding is a validation warning for crypto factor research, not direct evidence about a crypto strategy."},"originalResult":"The paper reports 65 percent failing a single-test threshold and 82 percent failing its higher multiple-testing threshold.","reportedMetrics":[{"id":"metric-anomalies-tested","label":"Anomalies tested","value":452,"unit":"anomalies","kind":"sample","qualifier":"Equity anomalies in the authors' data library.","workId":"hou-xue-zhang-2020-replicating-anomalies","locator":"Abstract"},{"id":"metric-single-test-failure-rate","label":"Failure rate at the single-test threshold","value":65,"unit":"percent","kind":"result","qualifier":"Failure rate under the paper's microcap and value-weighting controls.","workId":"hou-xue-zhang-2020-replicating-anomalies","locator":"Abstract"},{"id":"metric-multiple-test-failure-rate","label":"Failure rate at the multiple-testing threshold","value":82,"unit":"percent","kind":"result","qualifier":"Failure rate under the paper's higher multiple-testing hurdle.","workId":"hou-xue-zhang-2020-replicating-anomalies","locator":"Abstract"}],"assumptions":["The authors' common replication choices are suitable tests of the original anomaly claims.","Economic relevance is represented appropriately by the weighting and microcap controls."],"limitations":["The universe is equities, not digital assets.","Replication rates change with the statistical model, weighting, factor clustering, and definition of success.","Failure under one common protocol does not prove every original mechanism false."],"realityChecks":["Preserve competing replication frameworks rather than collapsing them into one score.","Apply crypto-specific listing, delisting, venue, shorting, and liquidity controls.","Report which methodological choice changes the conclusion."],"falsifier":"The stated result is misapplied as a crypto replication rate or used without the paper's specific weighting and testing choices.","cannotMean":["That 82 percent of cryptocurrency signals are false.","That all published factors fail.","That one replication protocol is the only valid protocol."],"workIds":["hou-xue-zhang-2020-replicating-anomalies"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"hou-xue-zhang-2020-replicating-anomalies","locator":"Abstract and replication-results overview","supports":"Anomaly count, replication procedure, failure rates, and smaller surviving magnitudes."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_applicable","replicationNote":"This is cross-market method evidence that shapes Bathymark's future crypto replication rules.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"The relevant output is a method receipt on each claim, not a live market state.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/methodology","label":"Methodology","role":"Bathymark method rules"},{"href":"/picks","label":"Signal Lab","role":"Current candidate claims"},{"href":"/log","label":"Public Record","role":"Outcome memory"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"disputed","note":"Journal result verified and linked to peer-reviewed counterevidence using a different replication framework.","workIds":["hou-xue-zhang-2020-replicating-anomalies","jensen-kelly-pedersen-2023-replication-crisis"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2027-01-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/financial-anomaly-replication-failures"},{"id":"claim-factor-replication-counterevidence","slug":"factor-replication-counterevidence","domainId":"research_validity","question":"Does a Bayesian replication framework reach the same anomaly-crisis conclusion?","conclusion":"Jensen, Kelly, and Pedersen report that a majority of asset-pricing factors replicate under their Bayesian model and show external validity in international and post-publication data.","claimType":"methodological","literatureStatus":"disputed","statusReason":"This peer-reviewed result directly complicates blanket claims of a finance replication crisis and must remain beside the stricter anomaly-replication result.","scope":{"assets":"Equity asset-pricing factors, not cryptocurrencies","venues":"U.S. and international equity data","geography":"93 countries in the authors' global data set","samplePeriod":"Paper-specific U.S., international, and post-publication samples","horizon":"Factor replication and external-validity tests"},"method":{"design":"Bayesian factor-replication model with theme clustering and international tests.","measures":"Factor returns, posterior replication evidence, theme clusters, and out-of-sample performance.","implementation":"The framework offers counterevidence about method, not a transferable crypto factor result."},"originalResult":"The paper concludes that the majority of studied factors replicate and that the factor family can strengthen, rather than only weaken, aggregate evidence.","reportedMetrics":[{"id":"metric-replication-country-count","label":"Countries in external-validity data","value":93,"unit":"countries","kind":"sample","qualifier":"International coverage reported by the source.","workId":"jensen-kelly-pedersen-2023-replication-crisis","locator":"Abstract"}],"assumptions":["The Bayesian prior, factor grouping, and shared information structure are appropriate.","International data provide a meaningful external-validity test for the factor definitions."],"limitations":["The universe is equities, not digital assets.","Bayesian conclusions depend on model and prior choices that must remain inspectable.","A high family replication rate does not validate every individual factor or implementation."],"realityChecks":["Show both classical and Bayesian evidence where the choice is decision-relevant.","Publish sensitivity to priors, clustering, universe, and weighting.","Do not import an equity replication rate into crypto without a new test."],"falsifier":"The conclusion is presented without its model choices, or applied as direct evidence that a crypto factor currently works.","cannotMean":["That there is no replication problem in finance.","That every reported factor is genuine.","That crypto factors inherit the equity result."],"workIds":["jensen-kelly-pedersen-2023-replication-crisis"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"jensen-kelly-pedersen-2023-replication-crisis","locator":"Abstract and external-validity section","supports":"Bayesian replication conclusion, factor themes, and international evidence."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_applicable","replicationNote":"This is method counterevidence that future Bathymark replication packets must preserve.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"No live market status follows from the equity replication debate.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/methodology","label":"Methodology","role":"Bathymark method rules"},{"href":"/sounding","label":"SOUNDING Method","role":"Counterevidence workflow"},{"href":"/evidence-ledger","label":"Evidence Ledger","role":"Prospective records"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"disputed","note":"Journal result verified and preserved beside the stricter anomaly-replication result.","workIds":["jensen-kelly-pedersen-2023-replication-crisis","hou-xue-zhang-2020-replicating-anomalies"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2027-01-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/factor-replication-counterevidence"},{"id":"claim-bitcoin-halving-causal-evidence","slug":"bitcoin-halving-causal-evidence","domainId":"cycles_regimes","question":"Does the historical halving pattern establish a causal price effect?","conclusion":"A 2025 preprint using synthetic control reports a positive 2024 estimate three months after the event, but no statistically robust causal estimate for the 2020 halving.","claimType":"causal","literatureStatus":"working_paper","statusReason":"The study is a non-peer-reviewed preprint, its two event results differ, and the independent halving sample remains extremely small.","scope":{"assets":"Bitcoin with synthetic-control comparison assets","venues":"Paper-specific market price data","geography":"Global Bitcoin market","samplePeriod":"2020 and 2024 halving analyses, with the reported 2024 study window ending July 2024","horizon":"Event and post-event price paths"},"method":{"design":"Synthetic control intended to construct a counterfactual Bitcoin without the issuance change.","measures":"Actual and synthetic Bitcoin price paths around the 2020 and 2024 halvings.","implementation":"The donor pool, fit window, anticipation, macro conditions, and concurrent market-structure changes are decisive."},"originalResult":"The preprint reports a positive 2024 estimate at three months and an inconclusive 2020 causal estimate.","reportedMetrics":[{"id":"metric-halving-positive-horizon","label":"Reported positive 2024 estimate horizon","value":3,"unit":"months","kind":"horizon","qualifier":"Horizon at which the preprint reports a positive 2024 synthetic-control estimate.","workId":"virtonen-2025-halving-synthetic-control","locator":"Abstract"}],"assumptions":["The synthetic control is a credible counterfactual for Bitcoin without the halving.","Concurrent ETF, liquidity, macro, and narrative changes are not driving the estimated difference."],"limitations":["The work is not peer reviewed.","There are too few halvings for a reliable recurring-cycle inference.","A scheduled event can be anticipated before its event date."],"realityChecks":["Preserve the mixed 2020 and 2024 results together.","Test donor-pool, anticipation-window, macro, and ETF sensitivity.","Do not count overlapping daily observations as independent halvings."],"falsifier":"Peer review, correction, or independent replication rejects the synthetic-control construction or removes the reported 2024 effect.","cannotMean":["That Bitcoin rises after every halving.","That a four-year return cycle is established.","That a known issuance change creates a tradable surprise on the event date."],"workIds":["virtonen-2025-halving-synthetic-control"],"sourceLocators":[{"workId":"virtonen-2025-halving-synthetic-control","locator":"Abstract","supports":"Positive 2024 estimate, inconclusive 2020 estimate, and synthetic-control design."}],"bathymark":{"replicationStatus":"not_started","replicationNote":"A donor-pool and anticipation specification has not been approved.","liveValidityStatus":"not_monitored","liveValidityNote":"Cycle Clock shows issuance timing only and makes no price-effect claim.","evidenceRoutes":[{"href":"/cycles","label":"Cycle Clock","role":"Issuance and dated context"},{"href":"/tide-map","label":"Tide Map","role":"Concurrent event context"},{"href":"/evidence-ledger","label":"Evidence Ledger","role":"Prospective event memory"}]},"statusHistory":[{"at":"2026-07-13","status":"working_paper","note":"Preprint and mixed event findings verified; no peer review or independent replication recorded.","workIds":["virtonen-2025-halving-synthetic-control"]}],"reviewedAt":"2026-07-13","nextReviewAt":"2026-09-13","url":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/claims/bitcoin-halving-causal-evidence"}],"relationships":[{"id":"rel-momentum-qualified-by-efficiency","fromClaimId":"claim-bitcoin-efficiency-evolves","toClaimId":"claim-crypto-time-series-momentum","type":"qualifies","note":"Time-varying dependence means a historical momentum result needs post-publication and regime tests."},{"id":"rel-liquidity-shares-arbitrage-mechanism","fromClaimId":"claim-liquidity-and-crypto-efficiency","toClaimId":"claim-cross-exchange-arbitrage-segmentation","type":"shares_mechanism_with","note":"Both records point to trading frictions and constrained arbitrage, while using different data and outcomes."},{"id":"rel-pbo-applies-momentum","fromClaimId":"claim-backtest-overfitting-probability","toClaimId":"claim-crypto-time-series-momentum","type":"method_applies_to","note":"A Bathymark momentum replication must preserve the tested parameter family and selection history."},{"id":"rel-dsr-applies-factors","fromClaimId":"claim-deflated-sharpe-ratio","toClaimId":"claim-crypto-market-size-momentum","type":"method_applies_to","note":"A factor portfolio result needs multiple-testing and non-normal-return controls before performance claims."},{"id":"rel-anomaly-debate","fromClaimId":"claim-financial-anomaly-replication","toClaimId":"claim-factor-replication-counterevidence","type":"contradicts","note":"The studies reach different high-level conclusions under different replication frameworks, so Bathymark preserves both."},{"id":"rel-halving-qualified-by-regime","fromClaimId":"claim-bitcoin-efficiency-evolves","toClaimId":"claim-bitcoin-halving-causal-evidence","type":"qualifies","note":"Changing market structure and predictability weaken any assumption that a small event sample repeats unchanged."},{"id":"rel-stablecoin-market-segmentation","fromClaimId":"claim-stablecoin-flows-fx-spillovers","toClaimId":"claim-cross-exchange-arbitrage-segmentation","type":"shares_mechanism_with","note":"Both identify segmented markets and constrained intermediaries, but one concerns stablecoin-FX transmission and the other crypto exchange prices."}],"standards":[{"id":"fair-principles","name":"FAIR Guiding Principles","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18","role":"Research objects should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable for people and machines.","status":"Guiding principles, not a certification or implementation standard.","reviewedAt":"2026-07-13"},{"id":"prov-o","name":"W3C PROV-O","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","role":"Portable provenance relationships for entities, activities, agents, derivation, and revision.","status":"W3C Recommendation dated 30 April 2013.","reviewedAt":"2026-07-13"},{"id":"ro-crate-1-3","name":"RO-Crate 1.3","url":"https://www.researchobject.org/ro-crate/specification/1.3/","role":"JSON-LD packaging for research data, code, workflows, people, licenses, and provenance.","status":"Current long-term release as of 22 June 2026.","reviewedAt":"2026-07-13"},{"id":"swhid","name":"Software Hash Identifier","url":"https://www.swhid.org/","role":"Content-derived identifiers for exact source files, trees, commits, and other software artifacts.","status":"ISO/IEC 18670:2025.","reviewedAt":"2026-07-13"},{"id":"crossref-metadata","name":"Crossref scholarly metadata","url":"https://www.crossref.org/documentation/retrieve-metadata/","role":"Bibliographic identity, DOI versions, update relations, and Retraction Watch links, excluding abstract and full-text ingestion.","status":"Bibliographic facts and Crossref-generated data are reusable; abstracts retain publisher or author copyright.","reviewedAt":"2026-07-13"}],"discovery":{"human_observatory":"https://www.bathymark.com/research","methodology":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/methodology","graph":"https://www.bathymark.com/research/graph.json","sitemap":"https://www.bathymark.com/sitemaps/research.xml","evidence_ledger":"https://www.bathymark.com/evidence-ledger","public_record":"https://www.bathymark.com/log","source_rights":"https://www.bathymark.com/data-sources"}}