Assessing the Credit Risk of Crypto-Assets Using Daily Range Volatility Models

In this paper, we analyzed a dataset of over 2000 crypto-assets to assess their credit risk by computing their probability of death using the daily range. Unlike conventional low-frequency volatility models that only utilize close-to-close prices, the daily range incorporates all the information provided in traditional daily datasets, including the open-high-low-close (OHLC) prices for each asset. We evaluated the accuracy of the probability of death estimated with the daily range against various forecasting models, including credit scoring models, machine learning models, and time-series-based models. Our study considered different definitions of ``dead coins'' and various forecasting horizons. Our results indicate that credit scoring models and machine learning methods incorporating lagged trading volumes and online searches were the best models for short-term horizons up to 30 days. Conversely, time-series models using the daily range were more appropriate for longer term forecasts, up to one year. Additionally, our analysis revealed that the models using the daily range signaled, far in advance, the weakened credit position of the crypto derivatives trading platform FTX, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States on 11 November 2022

Digital Money: the law of cryptocurrency and cryptography

Ordinarily, a cryptocurrency is a digital currency. Crypto currencies are digital assets that are designed to effect electronic payments without the participation of a central authority or intermediary such as a Central Bank or licensed financial institution. It is a medium of exchange that is in the form of digital asset and is designed to use strong cryptography in securing financial transactions; the control of creating additional units; and verifying asset transfer. Put more simply, it is a digital currency in which transactions are verified and records maintained by a decentralized system using cryptography, rather than by a centralized authority. Cryptocurrencies’ may have an effect of bypassing the traditional established centralized systems of money transaction control and this factor has to some minor extent contributed to the skepticism that some economies have towards adopting this trend. In the making of Bit coins, the framers envisioned a world here people would use this digital currency for almost all transactions. No wander still, that the traditional banking system wants to control or eliminate bitcoin. Despite the skepticism surrounding Bitcoins, some countries have endorsed it. El Salvador was the first country to use bitcoin as legal tender, alongside the US dollar.1 Japan and the U.K have also gone miles in promoting the using of bitcoins. Bitcoins being virtual and secured by cryptography, gives another important bypass to common day challenges in the money market like counterfeiting and double spending. They fall under a decentralized system based on block chain technology

Formal explorations in collective and individual rationality

This thesis addresses several questions regarding what rational agents ought to believe and how they ought to act. In the first part I begin by discussing how scientists contemplating several mutually exclusive theories, models or hypotheses can reach a rational decision regarding which one to endorse. In response to a recent argument that they cannot, I employ the tools of social choice theory to offer a ‘possibility result’ for rational theory choice. Then I utilize the tools of judgment aggregation to investigate how scientists from across fields can pool their expertise together. I identify an impossibility result threatening such a procedure and prove a possibility result which requires that some scientists sometimes waive their expertise over some propositions. In the second part I first discuss the existing justifications for a restricted principle of indifference that mandates that two agents whose experiences are subjectively indistinguishable should be indifferent with respect to their identities. I argue that all existing justifications rely on the same mistaken reasoning behind the ‘staying’ strategy in the Monty Hall problem. Secondly, I show this mistake is more widespread and I identify it in arguments purporting to show the failure of two reflection-like principles. In the third part I look at a recent argument that fair policy makers face a dilemma when trying to correct a biased distributive process. I show the dilemma only holds if the correction has to happen in one-shot. Finally, I look at how we ought to design public restrooms so that we reduce the discrimination faced by minority groups. I make the case for opening our public restrooms to all genders

Sample redemption notice

A notice to NYCH membership to return particular CLCs for paymen