4.6 Article

HAS THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AFFECTED THE FLOW OF INFORMATION AMONG CRYPTOCURRENCIES?

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0218348X22500992

关键词

Digital Markets; Direction; Transfer Entropy; Pandemic; Coronavirus

资金

  1. Science and Technology Support Foundation of Pernambuco (FACEPE) Brazil
  2. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  3. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel Brazil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cryptocurrency market, finding a change in the direction of information flow and the dominance of Ethereum during the pandemic.
In this paper, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cryptocurrency market. The direction of information transfer between the 67 digital cryptocurrency markets was evaluated, in particular Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, and Ripple, and we determined which of them were the most influential in the markets. The comparison of the first half of 2019 (outside the pandemic of COVID-19) against the first semester of 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) was used to analyze the pandemic influence. We found two distinct behaviors: (i) in 2019, Bitcoin, as the primary capitalization bond, presented a more substantial transfer of information than the other cryptocurrencies toward Bitcoin -> Ripple (0.0541), followed by Litecoin -> Ripple (0.0522); (ii) in 2020, the most substantial transfers of information occurred from Ethereum to other cryptocurrencies (Litecoin, Bitcoin, and Ripple, in that order). In this period, the weakest transfers happened from Litecoin Ripple and in the opposite direction, with equal value (0.0104). Our results indicate that there was a change in the direction of the information flow between the investigated cryptocurrencies, where ETH became the dominant cryptocurrency during the period of turbulence caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据