Cryptocurrency Market Microstructure: A Systematic Literature Review

Annals of Operations Research (2024) 332:1035–1068
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05627-5
ORIGINAL - SURVEY OR EXPOSITION
Cryptocurrency market microstructure: a systematic

literature review
José Almeida1 · Tiago Cruz Gonçalves1
Received: 6 August 2022 / Accepted: 25 September 2023 / Published online: 27 October 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
This study contributes to the unconsolidated cryptocurrency literature, with a systematic
literature review focused on cryptocurrency market microstructure. We searched Web of
Science database and focused only on journals listed on 2021 ABS list. Our final sample
comprises 138 research papers. We employed a quantitative and an integrative analysis, and
revealed complex network associations, and a detailed research trending analysis. Our study
provides a robust and systematic contribution to cryptocurrency literature by making use of
a powerful and accurate methodology—the bibliographic coupling, also by only considering
ABS academic journals, using a wider keyword scope, and not enforcing any restrictions
regarding areas of knowledge, thus enhancing the contribution of extant literature by allowing
the insights of more high-quality peripheral studies on the subject. The conclusions of this
study are of extreme importance for researchers, investors, regulators, and the academic
community in general. Our study provides high structured networking and clear information
for research outlets and literature strands, for future studies on cryptocurrency investment, it
also presents valuable insights to better understand the cryptocurrency market microstructure
and deliver helpful information for regulators to effectively regulate cryptocurrencies.
Keywords Cryptocurrencies · Bitcoin · Efficiency · Market microstructure · Systematic

literature review · Bibliometric analysis
1 Introduction
To date the cryptocurrency market has experienced a rapid development, being amongst
the fastest growing world financial markets (Almeida & Gonçalves, 2023a; Białkowski,
2020; Fang et al., 2021), and considered as a very popular investment asset among investors
(Almeida, 2021; Li et al., 2021). Thus, attracting high attention from the media, regulators,
institutional and individual investors, and also as an important and actual topic of academic
research (Almeida & Gonçalves, 2022, 2023b, 2023c; Angerer et al., 2020; R. Li et al., 2021).
B José Almeida
[email protected]
1 ISEG – Lisbon School of Economics & Management, CSG, ADVANCE, Universidade de Lisboa,
Lisbon, Portugal
123
1036 Annals of Operations Research (2024) 332:1035–1068
Due to this increasing popularity and topicality, new empirical evidence is being produced
very fast (Angerer et al., 2020; Corbet, Lucey, et al., 2019). However, this literature provides
heterogeneous conclusions regarding the cryptocurrency market microstructure. Some stud-
ies indicate that the cryptocurrency market is inefficient (Akyildirim et al., 2021; Grobys
et al., 2020; Sapkota & Grobys, 2021; Vidal-Tomás et al., 2019a); others, point out the oppo-
site (Alvarez-Ramirez & Rodriguez, 2021; Burggraf & Rudolf, 2020; Caporale & Plastun,
2019; Kaiser, 2019; Lim et al., 2016); further studies, suggest the interconnectedness of
the cryptocurrency market (Corbet et al., 2018; Huynh et al., 2018; Luu Duc Huynh, 2019;
Shahzad et al., 2021; Tiwari et al., 2020); others the contrary (Kostika & Laopodis, 2020;
Sifat et al., 2019); and others still, that the cryptocurrency market is connected to other assets
(Kalyvas et al., 2021; Kurka, 2019; Luu et al., 2020; Thampanya et al., 2020); while others
suggest the opposite (Corbet et al., 2018; Gil-Alana et al., 2020).
It is thus evident, the great need to synthesize, aggregate, and identify literature gaps on
the existing knowledge in cryptocurrencies’ literature (Angerer et al., 2020; Corbet, Lucey,
et al., 2019).
Accordingly, we answer the call of Angerer et al. (2020) and Corbet et al., (2019a, 2019b),
and develop a systematic literature review on cryptocurrency’s market microstructure. The
study’s objective is threefold: 1) to consolidate and map the knowledge of the growing
academic literature on cryptocurrency market microstructure; 2) to ease future research by
identifying literature gaps; and 3) provide useful research outcomes for investors, academics,
researchers, and regulators.
This study contributes to the unconsolidated cryptocurrency literature, with a systematic
literature review focused on cryptocurrency market microstructure,1 revealing complex net-
work associations, and a detailed integrative analysis. We provide extended insights from
previous research (Al-Amri et al., 2019; Almeida, 2021; Amsyar et al., 2020; Angerer et al.,
2020; Badawi & Jourdan, 2020; Bariviera & Merediz-Solà, 2021; Corbet, Lucey, et al., 2019;
Eigelshoven et al., 2021; Flori, 2019; Hairudin et al., 2020; Haq et al., 2021; Herskind et al.,
2020; Huynh et al., 2020a, 2020b; Jalal et al., 2021; Kyriazis et al., 2020; Morisse, 2015;
Rahardja et al., 2021; Rejeb et al., 2021; Sarpong, 2022; Silva & Silva, 2022; Sousa et al.,
2022) by making use of a powerful and accurate methodology—the bibliographic coupling;
also, by only considering ABS academic journals; using a wider keyword scope, and not
enforcing any restrictions regarding areas of knowledge, we enhance the contribution of
our literature review by allowing the insights of more peripheral studies on the subject, and
thus making a more comprehensive and integrative contribution to cryptocurrency literature
system than previous studies.
Our findings are of extreme importance for researchers, investors, regulators, and the aca-
demic community in general. Our findings provide researchers with structured networking
and clear information for research outlets and literature strands for future studies on cryp-
tocurrency investment. Our study also presents valuable insights for crypto investors helping
them to better understand the cryptocurrency market microstructure, and thus helping them
minimizing risks and maximizing returns. Additionally, it delivers insightful information for
regulators to effectively regulate cryptocurrencies.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2, we present the data and the methodology
used. In Sect. 3, we perform a quantitative analysis of the literature. Section 4 presents the
integrative analysis of the literature and points out some future research venues. Lastly, in
Sect. 5, we provide some concluding remarks.
1 We consider market microstructure as the functioning of financial markets. Market microstructure focus on
structure of exchanges and trading venues, price discovery process, determinants of spreads, intraday trading
behaviour, and transaction costs (R. Kissell, 2014).
123
Annals of Operations Research (2024) 332:1035–1068 1037
2 Methodology
Our paper presents a systematic review process. Our aim is to cover all cryptocurrency related
literature since Satoshi Nakamoto first published his whitepaper in late 2008, up until the
present day. With this goal in mind, and following the works of Almeida and Gonçalves,
(2022), (2023a), (2023b); Liang, Yang and Wang (2016); Linnenluecke, Marrone and Singh
(2020); Jiang, Li and Wang (2021) and Yue et al. (2021), we decided to use the Web of Science
database (WoS)2 as our main search engine, searching for academic journals between 01-01-
2009 and 04-11-2021.
Using a different approach from the ones used by other authors such as Flori (2019a);
Kyriazis et al. (2020); Haq et al. (2021); and Jalal, Alon and Paltrinieri (2021), we consider
a wider keyword scope, not restricting our research to cryptocurrency market microstruc-
ture specific words. Also, we do not enforce any restrictions regarding areas of knowledge.
Therefore, using these approaches, we enhance the contribution of our literature review by
allowing the insights of more peripheral studies on the subject, and thus making a higher
contribution to cryptocurrency literature than previous studies.
We considered the following keywords: “Cryptocurrency”, “Cryptocurrencies”, “Bit-
coin”, “Portfolio diversification”, “Investment”, “Investor”, “investors”, “Alternative invest-
ment”. Applying the Boolean operators and the wildcard characters to the keywords, the
following research equation emerges: “cryptocurrenc* OR Bitcon AND diversification AND
portfolio AND invest* AND alternative”.
The quality criterions chosen for this paper follow three main guidelines: 1) the articles
must be English-written academic journals; 2) they must address the topic of cryptocurrencies
market microstructure from the investor/investment perspective; and 3) the journals must
belong to the Academic Journal Guide ABS3 (Association of Business Schools) list of 2021.
We excluded all other research that did not meet our selection criteria, and as a result of this
systematic review process our final sample included 138 articles.
In our analysis we use VOSviewer 1.6.17 software (Almeida & Gonçalves, 2022; Barto-
lacci et al., 2020; Ding et al., 2014; Galvao et al., 2019; Rialti et al., 2019; Sadeghi Moghadam
et al., 2021; van Eck & Waltman, 2017). Different from other cryptocurrency literature anal-
ysis (Aysan et al., 2021; Bariviera & Merediz-Solà, 2021; García-Corral et al., 2022; Jalal
et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2016; Merediz-Solá & Bariviera, 2019) we opted for the biblio-
graphic coupling option, since it aggregates the articles by clusters based on the number of
references they share (Bartolacci et al., 2020; Ding et al., 2014; Galvao et al., 2019; Rialti
et al., 2019; Sadeghi Moghadam et al., 2021; van Eck & Waltman, 2017). This option allows
for a very powerful and accurate analysis of the literature, since it is based on the number
of references where relationships between the articles do not change over time, unlike other
options based on the number of citations where the relationships between the articles may
change (Bartolacci et al., 2020; Ding et al., 2014; Galvao et al., 2019; Rialti et al., 2019;
Sadeghi Moghadam et al., 2021; van Eck & Waltman, 2017). Hence, the bibliographic cou-
pling option in VOSviwer allows for a rigorous replication of our analysis (Bartolacci et al.,
2020; Caputo et al., 2019).
Consequently, using the bibliographic coupling, a cryptocurrency market microstructure
cluster naturally emerges. Which we analyze in Sect. 3 and 4 of this study.
2 We also searched in Scopus database, however since due to the use of the ABS journal guide list as a quality
criterion, the articles provided by Scopus database were significantly overlapped with WoS to be considered
in this research.
3 With the use of the ABS journal list as a quality criterion we can ensure that the studies included in the
review have undergone a rigorous peer review process and are published in reputable journals.
123
3 Bibliometric analysis
In our first analysis, Fig. 1 presents the number of publications and citations regarding cryp-
tocurrency market microstructure. 2019 is the year when more articles were published (46)
and, also the year with the highest number of citations (1,530). On the other hand, 2017 is the
year when less articles were published (2). As expected, recent years present fewer citations,
given that older articles have more probabilities of having more citations. Additionally, we
evidence a very low correlation (0.07) coefficient between publications and citations over
time. These results highlight the novelty of this field of knowledge and, also a growing interest
of the academia in the cryptocurrency market.
In Fig. 2 we evidence that Bitcoin, efficiency, market, price, and volatility are the five
most frequent frequent words (both in article title and abstract) in the analyzed studies.
3.1 Cryptocurrency market top articles
Table 1 presents the top 10 most cited articles regarding cryptocurrency market microstruc-
50 1800
1600
40 1400
Publications
1200
Citations
30 1000
20 800
600
10 400
200
0 0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Publications 2 16 46 38 36 Publication/citati
Citations
on correlation
507 1384 1530 365 69 over time = 0.07
Fig. 1 Citations and publications over time
Fig. 2 Titles and Abstracts word cloud
123
Table 1 Shows the top 10 articles

by number of citations Cryptocurrency market microstructure (3855 citation and 138
publications)
Rank Article Citations
1 Corbet et al. (2018) 348

2 Katsiampa (2017) 346
3 Demir et al. (2018) 173
4 Urquhart (2017) 161
5 Phillip et al. (2018) 129
6 Brauneis and Mestel (2018) 123
7 Wei (2018a, 2018b) 111
8 Urquhart and Zhang (2019) 107
9 Gkillas and Katsiampa (2018) 89
10 Sensoy (2019) 86
ture. Corbet et al. (2018) is the most cited article with 348 citations, followed by Katsiampa
(2017) with 346 citations, and Demir et al. (2018) with 173 citations.
Additionally, we reveal that of the 138 analyzed studies 18.84% were solo-authored and
81.16% were co-authored. The solo-authored studies contributed with 27.76% of citations
(1070) and the co-authored with 72.24% (2785). This shows evidence that solo-authored
studies present a higher citations per publications ratio (41.15) compared with the co-authored
studies (24.86).
3.2 Cryptocurrency market authors network
Table 2 presents the top 10 most cited authors regarding the cryptocurrency market
microstructure literature. Paraskevi Katsiampa and Shaen Corbet are the most cited authors
in our dataset with 522 and 450 citations respectively. The most productive author is Andrew
Table 2 Shows the top 10 authors by number of citations
Rank Author Publications Citations Citations per publications
1 Katsiampa, Paraskevi 5 522 104.40

2 Corbet, Shaen 6 450 75.00
3 Lucey, Brian 4 420 105.00
4 Yarovaya, Larisa 3 385 128.33
5 Urquhart, Andrew 8 381 47.63
6 Larkin, Charles 2 368 184.00
7 Meegan, Andrew 1 348 348.00
8 Gozgor, Giray 4 322 80.50
9 Lau, Chi Keung Marco 4 322 80.50
10 Demir, Ender 3 317 105.67
123
Fig. 3 Cluster’s network of the most cited authors by year (average publication per year)
Urquhart with 8 published articles. Nonetheless, Andrew Meegan is the author that presents
the highest citation per publication ratio (348.00).
Figure 3 evidence a high structured and complex author’s network. Where Katsiampa,
Gozgore, Demir and Lau were the most cited authors in the year 2018. In the beginning of
2019 Vidal-Tomas and Larkin were the most cited authors, however in the end of the same
year Urquhart and Corbet took their place as the most cited authors. Later on, in the beginning
2020 the most cited authors were Gorbys and Sapkota, by the end of the year were Chan,
Chu and Zhang. Hence, revealing that the most recently cited authors are not present in the
general top 10.
3.3 Cryptocurrency market journals network
Table 3 evidence the most productive journals regarding cryptocurrency market microstruc-
ture studies in our dataset. Economics Letters is the most cited journal with 1,651 citations
and is also the journal that has the highest citation per publication ratio in our dataset (78.62).
However, in second place with 1,222 citations appears the Finance Research Letters, which
is by far the most productive journal in this research field with 48 publications.
In Fig. 4 we present the analysis of the most contributive research areas to our field of
knowledge, and as expected finance is the research area with more contributions, followed
by the economic area. With this analysis we also highlight how other areas of knowledge
have contributed to the better understanding of the cryptocurrency market microstructure.
Figure 5 highlights a relatively structured network of journals. Regarding average publica-
tions per year, the Economic Letters is the most cited Journal around the year 2019. Finance
Research Letters and the Research in International Business and Finance are the most cited
journals in the year 2020, and in 2021 the journal Annals of Operations Research and the
Journal of Futures Markets are the most cited journals in our research field.
123
Table 3 Shows the top 10 journals by number of citations
Rank Journal Publications Citations Citations per publications
1 Economics letters 21 1651 78.62

2 Finance research letters 48 1222 25.46
3 Research in international 9 303 33.67
business and finance
4 International review of 7 252 36.00
financial analysis
5 North American journal of 5 75 15.00
economics and finance
6 Applied economics 7 73 10.43
7 Applied economics letters 7 64 9.14
8 Journal of international 2 50 25.00
financial markets institutions
& money
9 Annals of operations research 5 45 9.00
10 Journal of financial 1 19 19.00
econometrics
Fig. 4 Most contributive research

areas
3.4 Cryptocurrency market institutions network
Table 4 presents the analysis of the most productive institutions to the cryptocurrency mar-
ket microstructure literature. Sheffield Hallam University is the most cited institution in our
dataset with 507 citations, followed by Dublin City University (450) and Trinity College
Dublin (420). University Southampton, University Reading, and Bilkent University are the
institutions with more published articles in our dataset. Nonetheless, Anglia Ruskin Uni-
versity is the institution that presents the highest citation per publication ratio (184.00).
Additionally, we find that the number of publications by university and the ranking THE
(Times Higher Education) present a very low correlation of -0.082, evidencing that the num-
ber of publications is not positively correlated with the university rank.
Figure 6 shows a highly structured and complex institutions’ network. Regarding average
publications per year, Sheffield Hallam University was the most cited institution by the end
123
Fig. 5 Cluster’s network of the most cited journals by year (average publication per year)
Table 4 Shows the top 10 institutions by number of citations
Rank Institution Publications Citations Citations per Times higher

publications education
ranking
1 Sheffield hallam 4 507 126.75 801–1000

university
2 Dublin city university 6 450 75.00 501–600
3 Trinity college dublin 4 420 105.00 146
4 Anglia ruskin 2 368 184.00 301–350
university
5 University of 5 323 64.60 601–800
huddersfield
6 Istanbul medeniyet 4 322 80.50 801–1000
university
7 University of 7 272 38.86 124
southampton
8 University of sydney 4 235 58.75 58
9 University of reading 7 220 31.43 201–250
10 Bilkent university 7 251 35.86 601–800
of 2018. In 2019 the Trinity College Dublin and the Anglia Ruskin University were the most
cited institutions. In the end of 2020, the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City and the
Whu Otto Beisheim School of Management were the most cited institutions. Thus, revealing
that the most recently cited institutions are not present in the general top 10.
123
Fig. 6 Cluster’s network of the most cited institution by year (average publication per year)
3.5 Cryptocurrency market countries network
Table 5 and Fig. 7 show the most productive countries in our research field. England is the
country that stands out as the most important country with 1,920 citations and 35 published
articles. Turkey (554) is the second most cited country followed by Ireland (450). The country
that has the highest citation per publication ratio in our top 10 countries is North Ireland
(173.00). However, if we consider the number of citations of a country by the number of
universities4 presented in Table 6, we realize that Ireland presents the highest ratio (56.25)
followed by Austria (52.75), Greece (24.00), United Kingdom (17.74), and Turkey (10.26).
On the other hand, if we consider the number of publications of a country by the number of
4 The number of universities was sourced from the THE ranking and filtered by Finance Universities.
Table 5 shows the top 10 countries by number of citations
Rank Country Publications Citations Citations per publications
1 England 35 1920 54.86

2 Turkey 14 554 39.57
3 Ireland 7 450 64.29
4 Australia 11 448 40.73
5 Spain 11 305 27.73
6 Peoples R. China 21 222 10.57
7 Austria 3 211 70.33
8 Greece 5 192 38.40
9 North Ireland 1 173 173.00
10 USA 14 147 10.50
123
Fig. 7 Publications by country world map
Table 6 shows Countries’ publications and citation scaled by number of universities
Country Publications Citations Number of Publications per Citations per

universities universities universities
United 36 2093 118 0.305 17.74

Kingdom
Turkey 14 554 54 0.259 10.26
Ireland 7 450 8 0.875 56.25
Australia 11 448 37 0.297 12.11
Spain 11 305 47 0.234 6.49
Peoples R. 21 222 77 0.272 2.88
China
Austria 3 211 4 0.750 52.75
Greece 5 192 8 0.625 24.00
USA 14 147 168 0.083 0.88
universities Ireland also present the highest ratio (0.875) followed by Austria (0.750), Greece
(0.625), United Kingdom (0.305), Australia (0.297), and China (0.272). In both analysis the
United States of America present the lowest ratios of the top 10 most cited countries.
Figure 8 reveals a highly structured and complex countries’ network. Regarding average
publications per year, Australia was the most cited country in the beginning of 2019. However,
in 2020 England, Turkey and Ireland appear as the most cited countries in this research field.
In the beginning of 2021, China was the most cited country, however by the end of the year,
Lebanon, Pakistan, Kosovo, Kenya, and Mexico were the countries with more citations.
Consequently, revealing that more recently, the most cited countries are not present in the
overall top 10.
123
Fig. 8 Cluster’s network of the most cited country by year (average publication per year)
4 Literature findings on cryptocurrency market microstructure
4.1 Is the cryptocurrency market efficient?
4.1.1 Cryptocurrency market efficiency
This literature review addresses the efficiency in the cryptocurrency market. We found evi-
dence supporting the existence of efficiency in the cryptocurrency market. For instance,
evidence reveals a significant low volatility premium, indicating that the cryptocurrency
market is more efficient than expected (Burggraf & Rudolf, 2020), and becoming more effi-
cient over the years (Alvarez-Ramirez & Rodriguez, 2021). Evidence also shows that the
average price delay tends to decrease, implying that the efficiency in the cryptocurrency
market is improving (Köchling et al., 2019b).
Nonetheless, evidence also reports that there are heterogeneous patterns of efficiency in the
cryptocurrency market (Brauneis & Mestel, 2018), that there are seasonality patterns in cryp-
tocurrency returns supporting a weak-form efficient market hypothesis (Caporale & Plastun,
2019; Kaiser, 2019; Lim et al., 2016). Additionally, it is revealed that there are no significant
momentum payoffs in the cryptocurrency market, that the cross-sectional momentum even
present negative payoffs, thus supporting the hypothesis that the cryptomarket presents some
efficiency (Grobys & Sapkota, 2019). It is also found that the turnover ratio as a measure of
liquidity positively affects efficiency, evidencing that cryptocurrencies become more efficient
as liquidity decreases (Brauneis & Mestel, 2018).
Regarding the Bitcoin market in specific, we found that it presents signs of efficiency (Wei,
2018a). In fact, there is evidence that Bitcoin is the most efficient cryptocurrency (Brauneis &
Mestel, 2018). Future Bitcoin values are unpredictable, fact that is suggested by the presence
of a random walk in the returns of cryptocurrencies, which supports the efficient market
hypothesis (EMH) (Yaya et al., 2021). Furthermore, evidence shows that the multifractal
degree in Bitcoin time series is related to market efficiency in a non-linear manner (Takaishi &
123
Adachi, 2020). Moreover, making use of the Strongly Typed Genetic Programming (STGP)-
based learning algorithm, evidence reveals that Bitcoin market populated with high frequency
traders (HFTs) at one-minute frequency is efficient (Manahov & Urquhart, 2021).
Further evidence on Bitcoin efficiency reveals that after the introduction of Bitcoin futures,
Bitcoin spot market became more efficient (Kim et al., 2020; Köchling et al., 2019a). Thus,
Bitcoin futures seem to have affected the informational efficiency in Bitcoin spot market,
turning them more informational efficient after the introduction of Bitcoin futures (Shynke-
vich, 2021). Both Bitcoin spot and future markets have responded to substantial regulatory
and fraudulent events, presenting therefore evidence of market efficiency. In addition, it is
revealed that information flows and price discovery suffered a reversion, and now they are
transmitted from future market to spot markets, possibly by the influx of sophisticated and
institutional investors (Akyildirim, Corbet, Katsiampa, et al., 2020).
The evaluation of Bitcoin efficiency during times of market stress highlights that Bitcoin
market kept efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic (Wu et al., 2021). The comparison of
these results with other assets revealed that during the pandemic Bitcoin was more efficient
than Ethereum, Binance Coin, and S&P500; and presented similar efficiency with spot Gold
market (Wu et al., 2021). These results highlight that Bitcoin seem to be efficient during
times of market stress (Wu et al., 2021).
Additional evidence reports that specific transactions registered on the Bitcoin blockchain
are able to predict short-term Bitcoin returns (Ante & Fiedler, 2021). Therefore, evidencing
that the Bitcoin market reacts to certain large Bitcoin transfers, pricing in the new information.
Thus, these specific large Bitcoin transfers can be considered as relevant aspects in the
informational efficiency of Bitcoin, as well as in its market structure (Ante & Fiedler, 2021).
4.1.2 Cryptocurrency market inefficiency
In our literature review we also documented evidence that supports the inefficiency of the
cryptocurrency market (Aggarwal et al., 2020; Akyildirim et al., 2021; Caporale et al., 2018;
Grobys et al., 2020; Sapkota & Grobys, 2021; Takaishi & Adachi, 2018; Vidal-Tomás et al.,
2019a). For instance, evidence suggests that after an event, the information is not immediately
fully reflected in the price, thus implying inefficiency (Hashemi Joo et al., 2020). Furthermore,
it is highlighted that simple announcements of any type of plan related to a cryptocurrency
increases dramatically companies shares value, thus evidencing a new form of information
asymmetry, such as the example of KODAKCoin on Kodak stocks (Corbet et al., 2020).
Further evidence reveals presence of a cross-section dependence amongst the most popular
cryptocurrencies; evidencing that the cryptomarket is inefficient, specially the top ranked
cryptocurrencies (Hu et al., 2019a). It is also revealed that reversal effects are more evident
among cryptocurrencies with less liquidity and smaller market capitalization (Kozlowski
et al., 2021). Nonetheless, these effects are also evidenced for cryptocurrencies with larger
market capitalization and more liquidity; however, at shorter holding periods (Kozlowski
et al., 2021). These effects are driven by market inefficiency as well as a compensation for
liquidity (Kozlowski et al., 2021). Consequently, it is evident the presence of reversal effects
in the cryptocurrency market for daily, weekly, and monthly holding periods (Kozlowski
et al., 2021).
In addition, investigating the efficiency in the cryptocurrency market from a structural
break perspective, and volatility spillovers, evidence reveals that the cryptocurrency market
systematically present structural breaks (Canh et al., 2019). Additionally, it reveals causality
effects among large cryptocurrencies, especially in Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ripple, Stellar, Monero,
123
Dash, Bytecoin. Furthermore, it is shown that cryptocurrencies are correlated in a whole with
higher volatility spillover among them (Canh et al., 2019).
Further evidence reveals that even after controlling for past volatility and skewness, size
and volume, there is evidence of a strong presence of small price bias in cryptocurrency
investors. Thus, indicating the presence of inefficiency in the cryptocurrency market (Aloosh
& Ouzan, 2020). It is also shown that the cryptocurrency market is weak-form inefficient,
and that its inefficiency seems to increase over time (Vidal-Tomás et al., 2019b).
There is also evidence highlighting inefficiency in the specific case of Bitcoin (Aggarwal
et al., 2020; Chevapatrakul & Mascia, 2019) For instance, it is revealed that there is presence
of dual long memory and structural changes in Bitcoin and Ethereum, suggesting that these
markets are inefficient (Mensi, Al-Yahyaee, et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is revealed a delayed
response of Bitcoin’s volatility to a volatility shock in Ethereum returns, hence, indicating
that the Bitcoin market is inefficient (Beneki et al., 2019).
Additionally, evidence reveals that there are large arbitrage opportunities during Bitcoin
market crashes, between the Bitcoin spot and futures market (Hattori & Ishida, 2020). Fur-
ther evidence reveals that Bitcoin presents information inefficiency, for 115- and 60-min
returns. Therefore, evidencing that it is possible to generate abnormal profits for these cryp-
tocurrencies with the use of algorithmic trading strategies at 1 min or 60 min trading (Aslan
& Sensoy, 2020). In addition, evidence also reveals that a Bitcoin market populated with
high frequency traders (HFTs) at five-minute frequency, reveals to be inefficient (Manahov
& Urquhart, 2021). Hence, the higher the frequencies, the lower the pricing efficiency of
Bitcoin is (Guégan & Renault, 2021).
In addition, evidence reveals that the daily returns of Bitcoin Investment Trust fund (BIT),
whose shares have been trading at a significant premium over its net asset value (NAV),
reveal significant positive autocorrelation in shorter lags, thus evidencing that the market for
Bitcoin Investment Trust fund (BIT) seem to be inefficient (Shynkevich, 2020).
4.1.3 Adaptive market hypothesis
Other studies evidenced that the inefficiency/efficiency of the cryptocurrency market is time
varying (Caporale et al., 2018; Keshari Jena et al., 2020). They reveal that there are still
periods of inefficiency that alternate with periods of efficiency, thus supporting the Adaptive
Market Hypothesis (AMH) (Chu et al., 2019; Duan et al., 2021; López-Martín et al., 2021;
Mensi et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Noda, 2021; Tran & Leirvik, 2020; Vidal-Tomás et al.,
2019b). For instance, evidence reveals that the cryptocurrency market presents multifractality
and long-memory properties, thus evidencing inefficiency; however it is revealed that this
inefficiency varies across time (Al-Yahyaee et al., 2020; Charfeddine & Maouchi, 2019;
Khuntia & Pattanayak, 2020). Moreover, the calendar effects in the cryptocurrency market
are also time varying. For instance, Bytecoin appears to be the more inefficient in case
of Monday anomalies; Bitcoin presents the January anomalies; Monero the turn-of-the-
month (TOTM) effects; and Verge for the Saturday and Sunday (S&S) anomalies (Khuntia
& Pattanayak, 2021). Additionally, evidence highlights that when the cryptocurrency market
faces a downturn, the inefficiency seems to be higher; however, when the market is upwards
the inefficiency level seems to decrease. This fact highlights that the level of inefficiency
is time varying (Mensi et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c), thus supporting the adaptive market
hypothesis (AMH).
123
4.2 The role of liquidity in the cryptocurrency market
This strand of literature also addresses the liquidity issues in the cryptocurrency market. We
found evidence revealing the important role of liquidity in cryptocurrency market efficiency
(Wei, 2018a), which is highlighted when in liquid markets, volatility is lower and efficiency
is higher, since traders arbitraged away the return predictability (Al-Yahyaee et al., 2020;
Wei, 2018a).
Further evidence shows that the liquidity in the cryptocurrency market decreases after
negative news announcements, whereas increases after positive news announcements (Yue
et al., 2021). Yet, regarding Bitcoin intraday dynamics, evidence highlights that liquidity is
highest during the opening times of major global exchanges, and that the markets seem to be
more illiquid during the early morning (Eross et al., 2019). Furthermore, liquidity presents
a positive and significant effect on Bitcoin informational efficiency, unlike volatility that
presents a negative effect (Sensoy, 2019).
It is also shown that Bitcoin returns and volatility present significant positive relationship
with liquidity uncertainty. However, on the other hand, trade volume, market capitalization
and transaction fees, present a significant negative relationship (Koutmos, 2018b). It is also
highlighted that as intraday volatility rises, liquidity uncertainty also rises. Conversely, when
trade volume and market capitalization rise, liquidity uncertainty will tend to decrease (Kout-
mos, 2018b). Nonetheless, the period where liquidity was highest for Bitcoin investors was
around 2013 and 2014 (Koutmos, 2018b).
In addition, the reviewed literature present evidence showing that reversal effects are
more evident among cryptocurrencies with less liquidity and smaller market capitalization
(Kozlowski et al., 2021). These effects are driven by market inefficiency as well as a com-
pensation for liquidity (Kozlowski et al., 2021). It is also evidenced that liquidity factors,
contribute to the explanation of excess returns (Lim et al., 2016). Furthermore, the existence
of a weak positive correlation between returns and volume suggests that a misinterpretation
among investors may cause extreme price movements, and illiquidity in the cryptocurrency
markets (Chan et al., 2022).
Other studies reveal that the turnover ratio as a measure of liquidity positively affects
efficiency, similarly as size (market capitalization) (Brauneis & Mestel, 2018); that there is a
high correlation between delays, liquidity and size (Köchling et al., 2019b); and that returns
and liquidity also seem to have some impact on the size effect (Li et al., 2020a, 2020b).
4.3 Are the cryptocurrency markets volatile?
Volatility is also another important feature of the cryptocurrency market. The findings in this
literature review shows that the cryptocurrency market dynamic presents two different states
(stable and volatile) which differ from one cryptocurrency to another in volatility, mean
return, and interstate dynamics (Bejaoui et al., 2020). It also shows that cryptocurrencies
have several unique characteristics such as the long memory, leverage effects, heavy tails and
stochastic volatility (Phillip et al., 2018).
Reviewing the literature we further understand that cryptocurrencies are correlated in a
whole, with higher volatility spillovers among them (Canh et al., 2019), and also that they
present volatility clustering (W. Zhang et al., 2018). We also understand that the volatility
component seems to be driven by the level of popular interest in cryptocurrencies and major
market developments (Chaim & Laurini, 2019).
123
Additional evidence further reveals that there is higher volatility exposure in the Crypto-
Index 20 than in the FTSE 100, FTSE MIB, IBEX 35, CAC 40, DAX and MDAX European
equity indexes (Aliu et al., 2021). Thus, evidencing the high volatility of the cryptocurrency
market, compared to the equity markets.
Regarding the specific case of Bitcoin, our literature review reveals, that it suffers from
extreme volatility (Wu et al., 2021), with its highest level during US market trading hours
(Dyhrberg et al., 2018). Nonetheless, it is evidenced that Bitcoin and Litecoin are least risky
cryptocurrencies compared to other cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin cash (Gkillas & Kat-
siampa, 2018). Further evidence indicates that Bitcoin volatility responds to the major news,
highlighting for instance, that Bitcoin and Ethereum conditional covariance is significantly
affected by cross-products of previous news or shocks, and also by previous covariance terms
(Katsiampa, 2019). Additional evidence demonstrates that the price volatility is positively
related to the geopolitical risk (Aysan et al., 2019), indicating that geopolitical risks present
a predictive power on Bitcoin returns and volatility (Aysan et al., 2019).
In addition, evidence proves that decentralized Bitcoin exchanges (LocalBitcoins) present
higher volatility when compared with the centralized exchanges (GDAX, Kraken, Bitcoin.de,
Bitstamp, Rock Trading, and Coinfloor). Albeit, centralized exchanges present volatility
increases as prices jump; in decentralized exchanges the same does not occur (Matkovskyy,
2019).
Several other studies contribute to this strand of literature with some related findings
on cryptocurrency volatility modelling. For instance, evidence reveals that allowing for
stochastic volatility and a heavy tailed distribution, will provide more accurate forecasts
in cryptocurrencies returns and volatilities (Cross et al., 2021); that attention measures such
as the SVI Google index, significantly affect the conditional mean and the conditional vari-
ance of Bitcoin returns (Figá-Talamanca & Patacca, 2019); that Bitcoin display discontinuous
return jumps and varying average volatility that need to be properly captured (Chaim & Lau-
rini, 2018); that the use of close prices when conducting a forecast of Bitcoin volatility will
result in higher forecasting errors (Vidal-Tomás, 2021); that the existence of multifractality
in Bitcoin’s volatility, evidences the need to include it in a unified model along with the
volatility roughness (Takaishi, 2020). In addition, this literature review reveals several model
specifications that are found to be appropriate to measure cryptocurrency’s volatility. For
instance, when analyzing cryptocurrency prices, the stochastic volatility (SV) models seem
to outperform the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) mod-
els (Tiwari et al., 2019). The SV models appear to be more robust to misspecifications as well
as to radical changes in the time-series (Tiwari et al., 2019). Furthermore, to explain Bitcoin
price volatility the AR-CGARCH model seems to be an optimal model in terms of goodness-
of-fit, suggesting that it is important to consider the short and the long run components of
the conditional variance (Katsiampa, 2017). Moreover, the generalized autoregressive score
(GAS) models specifications with heavy-tailed distributions seem to improve the goodness-
of-fit as well as the forecast performance for Bitcoin risk and returns (Troster et al., 2019).
Other study developed a model to analyze the default risk in cryptocurrencies. The developed
model is based on a linear discriminant analysis to predict cryptocurrency defaults (Grobys
& Sapkota, 2020). The model has the ability to serve as a screening tool for investors since
it can explain 87% of bankruptcies in the cryptomarket, after only one month of trading
(Grobys & Sapkota, 2020).
123
4.4 Does uncertainty affect the cryptocurrency market?
In this strand of literature, we also found evidence that uncertainty affects the cryptocurrency
market. For instance, there is evidence that indicates that Chinas’ EPU is able to predict
Bitcoin returns (Cheng & Yen, 2020); there is also evidence that Bitcoin returns are negatively
associated with the changes in the United States EPU, thus, revealing that United States EPU
present a predictive power over Bitcoin returns (Demir et al., 2018). Moreover, Bitcoin
seems to react to uncertainty shocks in the traditional markets, indexed by the CBOE—DJIA
Volatility Index (CBOE/VXD) (Panagiotidis et al., 2019).
Additionally, evidence shows a strong connectedness among cryptocurrencies in periods
of high market uncertainty, whereas in periods of low market uncertainty it indicates a weak
connectedness (Antonakakis et al., 2019). Moreover, changes in domestic regulation produce
large international spillovers across cryptocurrency markets (Borri & Shakhnov, 2020).
4.5 Cryptocurrency’s prices behavior
Cryptocurrency price behavior is also addressed in this literature review. Evidence reveals
that in the cryptocurrency market approximately four-fifth of the mid-price changes seem to
be established within the market itself (Mark et al., 2020). In addition, it is shown that the
price movements of Bitcoin are linked to its transaction activity, albeit the returns seem to
explain more of the variation in transaction activity than the transaction activity in the returns
(Koutmos, 2018a).
Additional evidence supports the negotiation hypothesis regarding the price behavior of
cryptocurrencies (Hu et al., 2019b; Urquhart, 2017). Evidence reports that Bitcoin prices
cluster around round numbers (Hu et al., 2019b; Mbanga, 2019), showing no significant
pattern of returns after the round numbers (Urquhart, 2017). The negotiation hypothesis is
further supported since the price and volume present positive relationships with price clusters
(Urquhart, 2017). There is also evidence in support of the strategic trading hypothesis, but at
high frequencies (Hu et al., 2019b), and also supporting the psychological barrier hypothesis,
since high and low prices reveal patterns of clustering that are affected by the time frame
(Li et al., 2020a, 2020b). Further evidence reveals a strong and positive association between
sentiment and price clustering. The microstructure patterns of price clustering presented in
Bitcoin market seemed to be similar to the equity markets (Baig et al., 2019).
Additionally, evidence highlights positive serial correlation in cryptocurrency prices (Cor-
bet & Katsiampa, 2020). However, this serial correlation decreases with prior negative price
returns. Therefore, evidencing asymmetric reverting patterns in the Bitcoin price returns
(Corbet & Katsiampa, 2020). It was also found a higher persistence of positive returns com-
pared to negative ones, further supporting the existence of asymmetric reverting behavior in
the Bitcoin price returns (Corbet & Katsiampa, 2020).
Evidence shows that factors such as the market factor, equity-based factors, volatility
factors, and liquidity factors, contribute to the explanation of excess returns. On the other
hand, factor such as the risk-free rate, hash rate and the number of projects seem not to be able
to explain the excess returns (Lim et al., 2016). Additionally, it is revealed that the interest
rates in Bitcoin lending are related to the loan-to-value ratio (S. Zhang et al., 2021). More
specifically, when the price of Bitcoin increases by $10,000, the interest rate decreases by
10.7%, fact that encourages borrowers to buy more money, leading to pro-cyclical speculation
(S. Zhang et al., 2021).
123
Further evidence reveals that the size and the reversal factors are better in explaining cryp-
tocurrency returns than the traditional CAPM model (Shen et al., 2020). It is also evidenced
that two price factors that are able to better forecast future cryptocurrency returns are the
closing price of the last day, and the maximum price during last week (Yang & Zhao, 2021).
Other studies reveal that bifurcations in the cryptocurrency market also pose a risk, since
it weakens the market position and the pricing influence of cryptocurrencies (Tu & Xue,
2019). Also, Bitcoin shows the strongest bubble behavior. This may be explained by the fact
that Bitcoin is the cryptocurrency that has the widest media coverage and therefore, attracts
more general public awareness (Hafner, 2020).
4.6 Cryptocurrency market behavior and connectedness
4.6.1 Cryptocurrency market behavior
Subsequently, we also analyze studies that address the cryptocurrency market behavior. For
instance, evidence on cryptocurrencies’ dynamic behavior reveals that the cryptocurrency
market presents different degrees of long range dependence, and follow different stochastic
processes (Bariviera, 2021). Largest cryptocurrencies appear to follow monofractal pro-
cesses. Conversely, the other cryptocurrencies exhibit strong multifractality (Bariviera, 2021).
In addition, cryptocurrencies’ dynamic conditional correlations seem to indicate that they
were susceptible to market events and to speculative attacks (Kostika & Laopodis, 2020).
Evidence reveals a significant tail dependence between investor attention and the returns
of cryptocurrencies, mainly in the low frequencies domain (Su et al., 2021). There are also
indications that in the median quantiles there is no directional predictability from investor
attention to cryptocurrency returns. Hence, suggesting that long-term components seem to
be important sources of dependence (Su et al., 2021).
It is further revealed that there is no prominent external driver for cryptocurrencies, mean-
ing that each cryptocurrency appears to be affected by a specific external driver, this may
suggest that the underlying mining objective is the main determinant (Erzurumlu et al., 2020).
4.6.2 Cryptocurrency market interconnectedness
From the analyses of studies regarding cryptocurrencies interconnectedness we found evi-

dence of spillover effects within this market (Tiwari et al., 2020), evidencing a high
interconnection in the cryptocurrency market (Corbet et al., 2018). It is also shown that
bad contagion affects the entire cryptocurrency market (Shahzad et al., 2021). The reviewed
literature mentions that Bitcoin and Ethereum conditional covariance is significantly affected
by cross-products of previous news or shocks, and by previous covariance terms. Therefore,
suggesting that they are interconnected (Katsiampa, 2019). There is also evidence of a long run
cointegration between the value at risks of several altcoins and Bitcoin (Tan et al., 2021); and
also a significant bilateral co-explosive relationship above the 10% level between Bitcoin—
Dash, Ethereum–Dash, Ethereum–Monero, Ethereum–Litecoin, and Ripple–Stellar (Cagli,
2019). The explosive behavior in the returns of Bitcoin, Ripple, and Stellar is originated in
the upper tails of the returns distributions (Cai et al., 2021). In addition, there are also indi-
cations of co-movements in the time frequency space where Bitcoin leads the relationship
with Dash, Monero and Ripple (Mensi et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). Yet, Ethereum seems to
lead on the relationship with Bitcoin (Mensi et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c).
123
Additionally, there is also evidence reporting weak or no interconnectedness in the cryp-

tocurrency market. For instance, it is revealed that cryptocurrencies’ correlations with each
other are weak and do not present a common long run path (Kostika & Laopodis, 2020), high-
lighting a very low connectedness amongst the top six cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum,
Litecoin, Stellar, Ripple and Tether) (Gil-Alana et al., 2020). Evidence also shows no clear
indication of a lead-lag relationship between Bitcoin and Ethereum (Sifat et al., 2019). Fur-
thermore, in an analysis of the impact of cryptocurrency issuances on their subsequent returns,
it is revealed that Tether issuances seem not to impact subsequent Bitcoin returns (Wei,
2018b).
On the other hand, there is also evidence suggesting that the interconnectedness in the
cryptocurrency market is time varying (Aslanidis et al., 2019). It is revealed that total dynamic
connectedness of cryptocurrencies ranges between 25 and 75% (Antonakakis et al., 2019).
In periods of high uncertainty, the cryptomarket seem to have strong connectedness, whereas
in periods of low uncertainty it presents weak connectedness (Antonakakis et al., 2019).
Additional evidence reveals that Ethereum is getting more relevance as a main net transmitter
in the cryptocurrency market (Antonakakis et al., 2019), and that Monero presents the more
stable correlations (Aslanidis et al., 2019).
4.6.3 Cryptocurrency market connectedness to other markets
With regard to cryptocurrencies connectedness to other markets, we found evidence of a

significant and positive relationship between the sensitivities of technology, clean energy
industry indices, and Bitcoin returns, when stronger sentiment appears (Kalyvas et al., 2021).
Consequently, revealing the importance of the technology and clean energy sectors for the
production and operation of cryptocurrencies (Kalyvas et al., 2021).
In addition, evidence also reveals a connectedness with traditional assets (Kurka, 2019),
and a small risk spillover from cryptocurrencies into non-digital assets (Milunovich, 2018).
Albeit, different cryptocurrencies present different reactions to traditional assets (Kostika
& Laopodis, 2020). It is shown that in the case of Bitcoin, shocks that are transmitted to
other assets such as commodities and stocks (Kurka, 2019). For instance, there is evidence
of a spillover effect from Bitcoin to precious metals (Rehman, 2020), implying that changes
in the returns of either the markets have the potential to affect extreme returns in the other
market (Rehman, 2020); also that the Chinese Yuan can significantly affect cryptocurrency
prices, more specifically Bitcoin’s and Litecoin’s prices (Elsayed et al., 2020). Furthermore,
the US oil index is a receiver of informational flows from the cryptocurrency market, while
the European crude oil index is a source of informational flows to the cryptocurrency market
(Huynh, Shahbaz, et al., 2020).
Additionally, it is highlighted that there are hedge and diversification properties in Bitcoin
that hold unconditionally (Rehman, 2020), nonetheless are challenged by the high levels
of idiosyncratic shocks to Bitcoin (Rehman, 2020). Consequently, cryptocurrencies may be
seen as diversifiers against other non-digital asset classes in general (Milunovich, 2018), and
against commodities in particular (Huynh et al., 2021).
Nonetheless, there is also evidence suggesting that cryptocurrencies are somehow decou-
pled from the main financial assets. For instance, it is evidenced that the correlations between
cryptocurrencies and other traditional financial assets (bonds, stocks, indices and Gold) seem
to be insignificant (Aslanidis et al., 2019). Other studies reveal no cointegration between cryp-
tocurrencies and traditional assets (Corbet et al., 2018; Gil-Alana et al., 2020). These findings
also highlight cryptocurrencies ability as a diversification tool (Corbet et al., 2018; Gil-Alana
et al., 2020; Giudici & Abu-Hashish, 2019).
123
4.7 Investment properties of the cryptocurrency market
4.7.1 Characterization of cryptocurrency properties
Literature on the investment properties of the cryptocurrency market reveals that cryp-
tocurrencies present diversification abilities against traditional assets (Corbet et al., 2018;
Gil-Alana et al., 2020; Giudici & Abu-Hashish, 2019; Kurka, 2019). In portfolios composed
only by cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ripple present the largest diversification effect (EhlerS
& Gauer, 2019). In a mixed portfolio, a combination of Bitcoin with other cryptocurrencies
(Ethereum and DASH) provides better diversification benefits (EhlerS & Gauer, 2019; Mensi
et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). However, when analyzing the performance of naïve and opti-
mal cryptocurrency portfolio diversification, evidence shows that the naïve diversification is
comparatively equally as good as the optimal diversification (Platanakis et al., 2018).
The safe haven ability of cryptocurrencies is more present in cryptocurrencies that have a
larger market capitalization and higher liquidity (Wang et al., 2019). In the case of Bitcoin,
the safe-haven ability can be considered against CAD, CHF and GBP at intraday levels
(Urquhart & Zhang, 2019).
There is also evidence highlighting positive interrelationships between the conditional
correlations of financial market stress and cryptocurrencies (Akyildirim, Corbet, Lucey, et al.,
2020). However, the hedging ability of cryptocurrencies is more evident in Bitcoin, against
global geopolitical risks (Aysan et al., 2019; Kurka, 2019), and also against expected inflation
(Blau et al., 2021). It is also highlighted that Bitcoin’s main worth comes from being a short
position on modern expansionary monetary policies (Morillon, 2021).
Additionally, literature also reveals that momentum portfolios of cryptocurrencies present
diversification, hedge and safe haven properties against traditional assets (Tzouvanas et al.,
2020).
4.7.2 Traders and investors of the cryptocurrency market
Literature addressing cryptocurrency traders and investors reveals that despite of the existence
of different groups of age, gender, and trading patterns in the cryptocurrency trading, men are
the dominant gender. They trade more frequently, hold positions shorter and realize lower
returns (Hasso et al., 2019). Crypto-investors seem to pay frequent attention to news and
high ranked cryptos such as Bitcoin and Ethereum during all market phases (Subramaniam
& Chakraborty, 2020). Further evidence reveals the existence of psychological barriers in
cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Dash, Litecoin and Ripple. Bitcoin presents the strongest
signs of psychological barriers (Fonseca et al., 2020). Moreover, it is also revealed that high
readability of the whitepapers captures more interest from investors (S. Zhang et al., 2019).
In addition, evidence reveal bidirectional causal relationship between Bitcoin attention
(measured by google trends search queries) and Bitcoin returns (Dastgir et al., 2019). It also
reveals that higher investors’ crisis sentiment, measured by the FEARS index, increases the
price crash risk of cryptocurrencies (Anastasiou et al., 2021).
4.7.3 Trading strategies in the cryptocurrency market
Investment and trading strategies are also addressed in the reviewed literature. We found
evidence suggesting that naïve portfolios tend to outperform optimized portfolios (Brauneis
& Mestel, 2019; Kajtazi & Moro, 2019; Liu, 2019). It is also revealed that technical analysis
123
(TA) is suitable to help investors navigate in the cryptocurrency markets (Anghel, 2021).
Moreover, comparatively to the fixed length MA (FMA) or to the trading range break-out
(TRB), the variable length MA (VMA) trading strategy seems to be the best trading strategy
when trading Bitcoin (Corbet et al., 2019a, 2019b). Additionally, the technical trading rules
present high risk-adjusted returns compared to simple buy and-hold strategy (Hudson &
Urquhart, 2021). Conversely, there is also evidence suggesting that on an aggregated level,
it seems that simple trading rules such as the variable moving average strategy aren’t able to
generate excess positive returns of a buy-and-hold strategy (Ahmed et al., 2020).
Further evidence reveals that in order to allow for a significant reduction of the variability
of crypto-portfolio returns, it is important to develop asset-specific stop-loss rules, since these
rules survival rate is just up to 35% (Białkowski, 2020).
4.8 Cryptocurrency’s market future research venues
Literature reveals several literature gaps that future research needs to properly address. For
instance, to explore the presence of dynamic patterns of calendar effects such the Turn-of-
the-Year effect, the Halloween effect, the weather effect, and the Month-of-the-Year effects
(Khuntia & Pattanayak, 2021). Also, to further investigate the time varying efficiency of the
cryptocurrency markets (Charfeddine & Maouchi, 2019; Shahzad et al., 2021; Yang & Zhao,
2021), and what are the factors affecting it (Ahmed et al., 2020; Ante & Fiedler, 2021; Chu
et al., 2019; Kajtazi & Moro, 2019; Keshari Jena et al., 2020).
Other highlighted future lines of research are the need to further understand cryptocurren-
cies role against expansionary policies (Morillon, 2021); analyse momentum profitability in
cryptocurrency markets (Grobys & Sapkota, 2019), and other alternative factors such as size
and value (Burggraf & Rudolf, 2020); further investigate cryptocurrencies diversification and
hedging effects on investment portfolios (Aliu et al., 2021; Antonakakis et al., 2019; Cagli,
2019; Kajtazi & Moro, 2019; Yang & Zhao, 2021), as well as to analyse crypto-indices such
as the CRIX10 and the WorldCoinIndex on optimal portfolios (Kajtazi & Moro, 2019); fur-
ther understand, investors’ preferences of cryptocurrencies (Huynh, Shahbaz, et al., 2020),
and the Bitcoin lending rates and defaults (S. Zhang et al., 2021); analyse the differences in
the risk-return relation between different cryptocurrencies during stressed and normal market
periods (Tan et al., 2021), as well as to investigate the characteristics of cryptocurrencies in
terms of liquidity, volatility, and transaction volume (Cross et al., 2021; Fonseca et al., 2020;
Su et al., 2021).
Literature finds the necessity to further explore and understand cryptocurrencies behavior
with regard to other variables such as: stocks, bonds, gold (Aliu et al., 2021), WTI index and
derivatives on energy commodities (Grobys et al., 2020; Huynh et al., 2021; Yang & Zhao,
2021). Also, to further understand their relations using other uncertainty measures (Demir
et al., 2018) such as global risk factors, monetary policy, (Corbet et al., 2018; Hashemi Joo
et al., 2020; Huynh et al., 2021), domestic political risk indicators (Aysan et al., 2019), as
well as to consider news, and exchange rates effects (Elsayed et al., 2020).
Regarding datasets and data frequency, future research should also consider datasets that
cover more cryptocurrencies (Corbet et al., 2019a, 2019b; Elsayed et al., 2020; Fonseca
et al., 2020; Matkovskyy, 2019), more granular and longer datasets (Sifat et al., 2019), high
frequency data (hourly) (Chu et al., 2019; Giudici & Abu-Hashish, 2019; Matkovskyy, 2019;
Vidal-Tomás, 2021), and intra-day data (Aysan et al., 2019; Elsayed et al., 2020; Li et al.,
2020a, 2020b).
123
Future research should also consider the application of copulas (Gil-Alana et al., 2020),
different dynamic models such as the generalized autoregressive score (GAS) framework
(Matkovskyy, 2019), more advanced Machine learning tools (Anghel, 2021), and correlation
network models (Giudici & Abu-Hashish, 2019). It should also consider alternative measure
of risk such as value at risk and maximum drawdown (Burggraf & Rudolf, 2020), and apply
more complicated technical trading rules such as pairs trading (Canh et al., 2019; Corbet et al.,
2019a, 2019b; Shynkevich, 2020). Overall it is highlighted that research on cryptocurrencies
is at an experimental stage, and hence requires more rigorous econometric techniques to
establish the stylized facts in the market (Gil-Alana et al., 2020).
Table 7 summarizes the literature review; we highlight the main conclusion and future
research by literature topic.
5 Conclusion
Our study adds to cryptocurrency’s current literature, a systematic literature review on cryp-
tocurrency market microstructure. We searched on WoS database and focused only on journals
listed on 2021 ABS list. We employed a quantitative and an integrative analysis.
Our quantitative analysis results reveal a growing interest in this field of knowledge over
the past few years. We also highlight high structured and complex networks of authors, coun-
tries, and institutions. Unlike in the studies by Almeida and Gonçalves (2022), Almeida and
Gonçalves (2023a) Almeida and Gonçalves (2023b), and Aysan et al. (2021) we found that
the most cited journal is the Economics Letters. Europe, hosts the most contributive institu-
tions in this literature strand as in Almeida and Gonçalves (2022), Almeida and Gonçalves
(2023a), Jiang, Li and Wang (2021), Yue et al. (2021), and García-Corral et al. (2022),
however contradicting Almeida and Gonçalves (2023b) results, where China is the most
contributive country. Additionally, as expected, the most contributive areas of knowledge are
Finance and Economics.
Our integrative analysis main findings reveal several important features. Firstly, the ineffi-
ciency/efficiency of the cryptocurrency market is time varying, thus supporting the adaptive
market hypothesis (AMH). Secondly, the liquidity in the cryptocurrency market decreases
after negative news announcements and increases after positive news announcements; Bitcoin
liquidity is highest during the opening times of major global exchanges, and more illiquid
during the early morning. Thirdly, there are high volatility spillovers among cryptocurren-
cies; however, decentralized Bitcoin exchanges present higher volatility than the centralized
exchanges. We also found that there is a strong connectedness among cryptocurrencies in peri-
ods of high market uncertainty, and weak connectedness in periods of low market uncertainty.
Other main findings are that the price behavior of cryptocurrencies supports the negotiation
hypothesis, that Bitcoin prices cluster around round numbers, and reveal a strong and posi-
tive association between sentiment and price clustering. Another important highlight shows
that cryptocurrencies’ dynamic behavior reveals different degrees of long-range dependence
and follow different stochastic processes. Our literature review main findings also show that
the interconnectedness in the cryptocurrency market is time varying, and the cryptocurrency
market presents connectedness with traditional assets; however, different cryptocurrencies
present different reactions to traditional assets. We also found that cryptocurrencies present
diversification, safe-haven and hedging abilities. Another important finding shows that men
are the dominant gender in cryptocurrency investments, trading more frequently, holding
positions shorter and realizing lower returns. Finally, our main findings highlight that naïve
123
1056
Table 7 Summary of main literature findings and future research by literature topic
Literature topic Main findings Future research
123
Cryptocurrency market efficiency No significant momentum payoffs in the cryptocurrency market; Topics and objectives
Bitcoin spot market is becoming more efficient; Explore the dynamic patterns of calendar effects such the
Bitcoin market prices in the new information; Turn-of-the-Year effect, the Halloween effect, the weather
Bitcoin market kept efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic effect, and the Month-of-the-Year effects;
Cryptocurrency market inefficiency Information is not immediately fully reflected in the prices; Further explore the time varying efficiency of the
Reversal effects in the cryptocurrency market for daily, weekly, cryptocurrency markets, and what are the factors affecting
and monthly holding periods; it;
Large arbitrage opportunities during Bitcoin market crashes; Cryptocurrencies relationships with other variables such:
Presence of dual long memory and structural changes in Bitcoin stocks, bonds, gold, energy commodities, and consider
and Ethereum news, and exchange rates effects
Data Coverage and frequency
Adaptive market hypothesis (AMH) The inefficiency/efficiency of the cryptocurrency market is time Datasets that cover more cryptocurrencies;
varying; High frequency data;
Calendar effects in the cryptocurrency market are time varying; Longer datasets
When the cryptocurrency market faces a downturn, the
inefficiency seems to be higher; when the market is upwards
the inefficiency level seems to decrease
Liquidity in the cryptocurrency market Decreases after negative news announcements, and increases after Topics and objectives
positive news announcements; Investigate cryptocurrencies’ liquidity characteristics;
Bitcoin liquidity is highest during the opening times of major Cryptocurrencies relationships with other variables such:
global exchanges, and more illiquid during the early morning; global risk factors, trade policy uncertainty, monetary pol-
Presents positive and significant effect on Bitcoin informational icy, geopolitical risk, domestic political risk indicators, and
efficiency consider news, and exchange rates effects
Intra-day data;
Longer datasets
Table 7 (continued)
Cryptocurrency market volatility High volatility spillovers among cryptocurrencies, Topics and objectives
Decentralized Bitcoin exchanges present higher volatility then the Further investigate cryptocurrencies’ volatility characteris-
centralized exchanges; tics
Seems to be driven by the level of popular interest in cryptocur- Data Coverage and frequency
rencies and major market developments; Datasets that cover more cryptocurrencies;
Is positively related to the geopolitical risk; High frequency data
Cryptomarkets are more volatile than equity markets; Research methodologies
Stochastic volatility (SV) models outperform the generalized Use different dynamic models such the generalized autore-
autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) gressive score (GAS) framework;
models Consider alternative measures of risk such as value at risk
and maximum drawdown
Uncertainty in the cryptocurrency market Uncertainty affects the cryptocurrency market; Topics and objectives
EPU’s of China and US have predictive power over Bitcoin Understand cryptocurrency’s role against expansionary poli-
returns; cies;
Strong connectedness among cryptocurrencies in periods of high Cryptocurrencies relationships with other variables such:
market uncertainty, and weak connectedness in periods of low global risk factors, trade policy uncertainty, monetary pol-
market uncertainty icy, geopolitical risk, climate policy uncertainty, domestic
political risk indicators, and consider news, and exchange
rates effects
Intra-day data;
Longer datasets
Cryptocurrency’s prices behavior Approximately four-fifths of the mid-price changes seem to be Topics and objectives
established within the market itself; Cryptocurrencies relationships with other variables such:
Supports the negotiation hypothesis; global risk factors, monetary policy, domestic political risk
Bitcoin price movements are linked to its transaction activity; indicators, and consider news, and exchange rates effects
Bitcoin prices, cluster around round numbers; Data Coverage and frequency
Strong and positive association between sentiment and price Datasets that cover more cryptocurrencies;
clustering Intra-day data;
Longer datasets
123
1057
1058
Table 7 (continued)
123
Cryptomarket behavior Presents different degrees of long-range dependence; Topics and objectives
Follows different stochastic processes; Analyze the differences in the risk-return relation between
Largest cryptocurrencies follow a monofractal process, the others different cryptocurrencies during stressed and normal
exhibit strong multifractality; market periods;
Each cryptocurrency appears to be affected by a specific external Cryptocurrencies relationships with other variables such:
driver stocks, bonds, gold, WTI index, energy commodities;
Cryptomarket interconnectedness Spillover effects within the market; Data Coverage and frequency
Interconnectedness is time varying; Datasets that cover more cryptocurrencies;
Co-movements in the time frequency space among Intra-day data;
cryptocurrencies Longer datasets
Cryptomarket connectedness to other Connectedness with traditional assets;
markets Different cryptocurrencies present different reactions to tradi-
tional assets;
Bitcoin reveals relationships with commodities, stocks, and
technology and clean energy sectors
Characterization of cryptocurrency Diversification against traditional assets; Topics and objectives
properties Safe haven ability of cryptocurrencies is more present in cryp- Cryptocurrencies relations with other variables such: stocks,
tocurrencies that have a larger market capitalization and higher bonds, gold, WTI index, energy commodities, global risk
liquidity; factors, trade policy uncertainty, monetary policy, geopolit-
Hedging against global geopolitical risks and expected inflation ical risk, climate policy uncertainty, domestic political risk
indicators, and consider news, and exchange rates effects
High frequency data;
Longer datasets
Research methodologies
More correlation models
Table 7 (continued)
Traders and investors of the cryptomarket Men are the dominant gender in cryptocurrency investment; Topics and objectives
Men trade more frequently, hold positions shorter and realize Further understand, investors’ preferences of cryptocurren-
lower returns; cies
Psychological barriers in cryptocurrencies Data Coverage and frequency
Longer datasets;
High frequency data
Trading strategies in the cryptomarket Naïve portfolios tend to outperform optimized portfolios; Topics and objectives
Technical analysis (TA) is suitable to help investors in the cryp- Cryptocurrencies diversification and hedging effects on
tocurrency markets; investment portfolios;
Define asset-specific stop-loss rules Cryptocurrencies relations with other variables such: stocks,
bonds, gold, WTI index, energy commodities, global risk
factors, trade policy uncertainty, monetary policy, geopolit-
ical risk, climate policy uncertainty, domestic political risk

indicators, and consider news, and exchange rates effects
Datasets that cover more cryptocurrencies
Intra-day data;
longer datasets
Research methodologies
More advanced Machine learning tools;
More complicated technical trading rules such as pairs
trading
123
1059
portfolios tend to outperform optimized portfolios, and technical analysis (TA) are suitable
to help investors navigate in the cryptocurrency markets.
Differently from previous literature reviews (Al-Amri et al., 2019; Almeida, 2021; Amsyar
et al., 2020; Angerer et al., 2020; Badawi & Jourdan, 2020; Bariviera & Merediz-Solà, 2021;
Corbet, Lucey, et al., 2019; Eigelshoven et al., 2021; Flori, 2019; Hairudin et al., 2020; Haq
et al., 2021; Herskind et al., 2020; Jalal et al., 2021; Kyriazis et al., 2020; Morisse, 2015;
Rahardja et al., 2021; Rejeb et al., 2021; Sarpong, 2022; Silva & Silva, 2022; Sousa et al.,
2022), our study adds to current cryptocurrency literature, a focused systematic literature
review on cryptocurrency market microstructure; revealing complex network associations,
and a detailed integrative analysis. Our study differentiates itself from previous ones by
making use of the bibliographic coupling. Furthermore, by only considering ABS academic
journals; using a wider keyword scope, and not enforcing any restrictions regarding areas of
knowledge, we enhance the contribution of our literature review by allowing the insights of
more peripheral studies on the subject, and thus making a more comprehensive and integrative
contribution to cryptocurrency literature system than previous studies.
A study with these contributions is of extreme importance for researchers, investors,
regulators, and the academic community in general. Our findings provide researchers with
structured networking and clear information for research outlets and literature strands, with
time trended information relevant for future studies on cryptocurrency investment. Our study
also presents valuable insights for crypto investors helping them to better understand the
cryptocurrency market, and thus helping them minimizing risks and maximizing returns.
Additionally, it delivers insightful information for regulators to effectively regulate cryp-
tocurrencies.
While it is true that using only one database (WoS) may be seen as a limitation of the
research, it should be noted that the ABS journal guide list was used as a quality criterion,
and therefore the marginal articles provided by Scopus database were not deemed significant.
Future important venues of research in the cryptocurrency literature should also understand
the behavior of cryptoinvestors in various contexts (Burggraf et al., 2020), including the
Terra-Luna stablecoin meltdown and the FTX Scandal, and more specifically, to assess the
stability of stable coins (Almeida & Gonçalves, 2023b; Grobys & Huynh, 2022; Huynh,
2022).
Funding Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). The authors acknowledge financial support
from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (grant UI/BD/151446/2021 and grant UID/SOC/04521/2020,
respectively).
Data availability The data to conduct our review were sourced from the Clarivate Web of Science.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this
paper.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence,
and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is
not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
123
References
Aggarwal, D., Chandrasekaran, S., & Annamalai, B. (2020). A complete empirical ensemble mode decompo-
sition and support vector machine-based approach to predict Bitcoin prices. Journal of Behavioral and
Experimental Finance, 27, 100335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100335
Ahmed, S., Grobys, K., & Sapkota, N. (2020). Profitability of technical trading rules among cryptocurrencies
with privacy function. Finance Research Letters, 35, 101495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101495
Akyildirim, E., Corbet, S., Katsiampa, P., Kellard, N., & Sensoy, A. (2020). The development of Bitcoin
futures: Exploring the interactions between cryptocurrency derivatives. Finance Research Letters, 34,
101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.07.007
Akyildirim, E., Corbet, S., Lucey, B., Sensoy, A., & Yarovaya, L. (2020). The relationship between implied
volatility and cryptocurrency returns. Finance Research Letters, 33, 101212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
frl.2019.06.010
Akyildirim, E., Goncu, A., & Sensoy, A. (2021). Prediction of cryptocurrency returns using machine learning.
Annals of Operations Research, 297(1–2), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03575-y
Al-Amri, R., Zakaria, N. H., Habbal, A., & Hassan, S. (2019). Cryptocurrency adoption: current stage, oppor-
tunities, and open challenges. International Journal of Advanced Computer Research, 9(44), 293–307.
https://doi.org/10.19101/ijacr.pid43
Aliu, F., Nuhiu, A., Krasniqi, B. A., & Jusufi, G. (2021). Modeling the optimal diversification opportunities:
The case of crypto portfolios and equity portfolios. Studies in Economics and Finance, 38(1), 50–66.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-07-2020-0282
Almeida, J., & Gonçalves, T. C. (2022). A systematic literature review of volatility and risk management on
cryptocurrency investment: A methodological point of view. Risks, 10(5), 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/
risks10050107
Almeida, J., & Gonçalves, T. C. (2023a). A decade of cryptocurrency investment literature : A cluster-based
systematic analysis. International Journal of Financial Studies, 11(2), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs11
020071
Almeida, J., & Gonçalves, T. C. (2023b). A systematic literature review of investor behavior in the cryptocur-
rency markets. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 37, 100785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbef.2022.100785
Almeida, J., & Gonçalves, T. C. (2023c). Portfolio Diversification, Hedge and Safe-Haven Properties in
Cryptocurrency Investments and Financial Economics: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk
and Financial Management, 16(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16010003
Almeida, J. (2021). Cryptocurrencies and financial markets – extant literature and future venues. European
Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 108.
Aloosh, A., & Ouzan, S. (2020). The psychology of cryptocurrency prices. Finance Research Letters, 33,
101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.05.010
Alvarez-Ramirez, J., & Rodriguez, E. (2021). A singular value decomposition approach for testing the effi-
ciency of Bitcoin and Ethereum markets. Economics Letters, 206, 109997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ec
onlet.2021.109997
Al-Yahyaee, K. H., Mensi, W., Ko, H. U., Yoon, S. M., & Kang, S. H. (2020). Why cryptocurrency markets are
inefficient: The impact of liquidity and volatility. North American Journal of Economics and Finance,
52(February), 101168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2020.101168
Amsyar, I., Christopher, E., Dithi, A., Khan, A. N., & Maulana, S. (2020). The Challenge of Cryptocur-
rency in the Era of the Digital Revolution: A Review of Systematic Literature. Aptisi Transactions on
Technopreneurship (ATT), 2(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.34306/att.v2i2.96
Anastasiou, D., Ballis, A., & Drakos, K. (2021). Cryptocurrencies’ Price Crash Risk and Crisis Sentiment.
Finance Research Letters, 42(January), 101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.101928
Angerer, M., Hoffmann, C. H., Neitzert, F., & Kraus, S. (2020). Objective and subjective risks of investing
into cryptocurrencies. Finance Research Letters, 40(2021), 101737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.
101737
Anghel, D. G. (2021). A reality check on trading rule performance in the cryptocurrency market: Machine
learning vs technical analysis. Finance Research Letters, 39, 101655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.
101655
Ante, L., & Fiedler, I. (2021). Market reaction to large transfers on the Bitcoin blockchain - Do size and motive
matter? Finance Research Letters, 39, 101619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101619
Antonakakis, N., Chatziantoniou, I., & Gabauer, D. (2019). Cryptocurrency market contagion: Market
uncertainty, market complexity, and dynamic portfolios. Journal of International Financial Markets,
Institutions and Money, 61, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2019.02.003
123
Aslan, A., & Sensoy, A. (2020). Intraday efficiency-frequency nexus in the cryptocurrency markets. Finance
Research Letters, 35, 101298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.09.013
Aslanidis, N., Bariviera, A. F., & Martínez-Ibañez, O. (2019). An analysis of cryptocurrencies conditional
cross correlations. Finance Research Letters, 31(February), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.
04.019
Aysan, A. F., Demir, E., Gozgor, G., & Lau, C. K. M. (2019). Effects of the geopolitical risks on Bitcoin
returns and volatility. Research in International Business and Finance, 47, 511–518. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ribaf.2018.09.011
Aysan, A. F., Demirtaş, H. B., & Saraç, M. (2021). The Ascent of Bitcoin: Bibliometric Analysis of Bitcoin
Research. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(9), 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14090427
Badawi, E., & Jourdan, G. V. (2020). Cryptocurrencies emerging threats and defensive mechanisms: A sys-
tematic literature review. IEEE Access, 8, 200021–200037. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.30
34816
Baig, A., Blau, B. M., & Sabah, N. (2019). Price clustering and sentiment in bitcoin. Finance Research Letters,
29(March), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.03.013
Bariviera, A. F. (2021d). One model is not enough: Heterogeneity in cryptocurrencies’ multifractal profiles.
Finance Research Letters, 39, 101649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101649
Bariviera, A. F., & Merediz-Solà, I. (2021). Where do we stand in cryptocurrencies economic research? a
survey based on hybrid analysis. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35(2), 377–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joes.12412
Bartolacci, F., Caputo, A., & Soverchia, M. (2020). Sustainability and financial performance of small and
medium sized enterprises: A bibliometric and systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 29(3), 1297–1309. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2434
Bejaoui, A., Ben Sassi, S., & Majdoub, J. (2020). Market dynamics, cyclical patterns and market states: Is there
a difference between digital currencies markets? Studies in Economics and Finance, 37(4), 585–604.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-08-2019-0302
Beneki, C., Koulis, A., Kyriazis, N. A., & Papadamou, S. (2019). Investigating volatility transmission and
hedging properties between Bitcoin and Ethereum. Research in International Business and Finance,
48(January), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.01.001
Białkowski, J. (2020). Cryptocurrencies in institutional investors’ portfolios: Evidence from industry stop-loss
rules. Economics Letters, 191(2020), 108834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.108834
Blau, B. M. (2017). Price dynamics and speculative trading in bitcoin. Research in International Business and
Finance, 41(May), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.05.010
Blau, B. M., Griffith, T. G., & Whitby, R. J. (2021). Inflation and Bitcoin: A descriptive time-series analysis.
Economics Letters, 203, 109848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109848
Borri, N., & Shakhnov, K. (2020). Regulation spillovers across cryptocurrency markets. Finance Research
Letters, 36, 101333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.101333
Brauneis, A., & Mestel, R. (2018). Price discovery of cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin and beyond. Economics Letters,
165, 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.02.001
Brauneis, A., & Mestel, R. (2019). Cryptocurrency-portfolios in a mean-variance framework. Finance Research
Letters, 28, 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.05.008
Burggraf, T., & Rudolf, M. (2020b). Cryptocurrencies and the low volatility anomaly. Finance Research
Burggraf, T., Huynh, T. L. D., Rudolf, M., & Wang, M. (2020). Do FEARS drive Bitcoin? Review of Behavioral
Finance, 13(3), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-11-2019-0161
Cagli, E. C. (2019b). Explosive behavior in the prices of Bitcoin and altcoins. Finance Research Letters, 29,
398–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.09.007
Cai, Y., Chevapatrakul, T., & Mascia, D. V. (2021). How is price explosivity triggered in the cryptocurrency
markets? Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04298-4
Canh, N. P., Wongchoti, U., Thanh, S. D., & Thong, N. T. (2019). Systematic risk in cryptocurrency market:
Evidence from DCC-MGARCH model. Finance Research Letters, 29(March), 90–100. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.frl.2019.03.011
Caporale, G. M., & Plastun, A. (2019). The day of the week effect in the cryptocurrency market. Finance
Research Letters, 31, 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.11.012
Caporale, G. M., Gil-Alana, L., & Plastun, A. (2018). Persistence in the cryptocurrency market. Research in
International Business and Finance, 46, 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.01.002
Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Maley, J., & Silic, M. (2019). Ten years of conflict management research 2007–2017:
An update on themes, concepts and relationships. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(1),
87–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-06-2018-0078
123
Chaim, P., & Laurini, M. P. (2018). Volatility and return jumps in bitcoin. Economics Letters, 173, 158–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.10.011
Chaim, P., & Laurini, M. P. (2019c). Nonlinear dependence in cryptocurrency markets. North American Journal
of Economics and Finance, 48, 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2019.01.015
Chan, S., Chu, J., Zhang, Y., & Nadarajah, S. (2022a). An extreme value analysis of the tail relationships
between returns and volumes for high frequency cryptocurrencies. Research in International Business
and Finance, 59, 101541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2021.101541
Charfeddine, L., & Maouchi, Y. (2019d). Are shocks on the returns and volatility of cryptocurrencies really
persistent? Finance Research Letters, 28, 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.06.017
Cheng, H. P., & Yen, K. C. (2020c). The relationship between the economic policy uncertainty and the
cryptocurrency market. Finance Research Letters, 35, 101308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.101308
Chevapatrakul, T., & Mascia, D. V. (2019e). Detecting overreaction in the Bitcoin market: A quantile autore-
gression approach. Finance Research Letters, 30, 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.11.004
Chu, J., Zhang, Y., & Chan, S. (2019). The adaptive market hypothesis in the high frequency cryptocurrency
market. International Review of Financial Analysis, 64(May), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.
2019.05.008
Corbet, S., & Katsiampa, P. (2020). Asymmetric mean reversion of Bitcoin price returns. International Review
of Financial Analysis, 71, 101267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2018.10.004
Corbet, S., Meegan, A., Larkin, C., Lucey, B., & Yarovaya, L. (2018). Exploring the dynamic relationships
between cryptocurrencies and other financial assets. Economics Letters, 165, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.econlet.2018.01.004
Corbet, S., Eraslan, V., Lucey, B., & Sensoy, A. (2019a). The effectiveness of technical trading rules in
cryptocurrency markets. Finance Research Letters, 31, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.04.027
Corbet, S., Lucey, B., Urquhart, A., & Yarovaya, L. (2019b). Cryptocurrencies as a financial asset: A systematic
analysis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 62, 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2018.
09.003
Corbet, S., Larkin, C., Lucey, B., & Yarovaya, L. (2020). KODAKCoin: A blockchain revolution or exploiting
a potential cryptocurrency bubble? Applied Economics Letters, 27(7), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504851.2019.1637512
Cross, J. L., Hou, C., & Trinh, K. (2021). Returns, volatility and the cryptocurrency bubble of 2017–18.
Economic Modelling, 104, 105643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2021.105643
Dastgir, S., Demir, E., Downing, G., Gozgor, G., & Lau, C. K. M. (2019). The causal relationship between
Bitcoin attention and Bitcoin returns: Evidence from the Copula-based Granger causality test. Finance
Demir, E., Gozgor, G., Lau, C. K. M., & Vigne, S. A. (2018). Does economic policy uncertainty predict the
Bitcoin returns? An Empirical Investigation. Finance Research Letters, 26(January), 145–149. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.01.005
Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., & Wolfram, D. (2014). Measuring scholarly impact. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-10377-8
Duan, K., Li, Z., Urquhart, A., & Ye, J. (2021). Dynamic efficiency and arbitrage potential in Bitcoin: A long-
memory approach. International Review of Financial Analysis, 75, 101725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
irfa.2021.101725
Dyhrberg, A. H., Foley, S., & Svec, J. (2018). How investible is Bitcoin? Analyzing the liquidity and transaction
costs of Bitcoin markets. Economics Letters, 171, 140–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.07
.032
EhlerS, S., & Gauer, K. (2019). Beyond bitcoin: A statistical comparison of leading cryptocurrencies and
fiat currencies and their impact on portfolio diversification. Journal of Alternative Investments, 22(1),
114–126. https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2019.1.072
Eigelshoven, F., Ullrich, A., & Parry, D. A. (2021). Cryptocurrency Market Manipulation: A Systematic
Literature Review. Forty-Second International Conference on Information Systems, December, 1–17.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354995772
Elsayed, A. H., Gozgor, G., & Lau, C. K. M. (2020e). Causality and dynamic spillovers among cryptocurrencies
and currency markets. International Journal of Finance and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2257
Eross, A., McGroarty, F., Urquhart, A., & Wolfe, S. (2019). The intraday dynamics of bitcoin. Research in
International Business and Finance, 49(January), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.01.008
Erzurumlu, Y. O., Oygur, T., & Kirik, A. (2020). One size does not fit all: External driver of the cryptocurrency
world. Studies in Economics and Finance, 37(3), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-01-2020-0018
Fang, F., Chung, W., Ventre, C., Basios, M., Kanthan, L., Li, L., & Wu, F. (2021). Ascertaining price formation
in cryptocurrency markets with machine learning. European Journal of Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1351847X.2021.1908390
123
Figá-Talamanca, G., & Patacca, M. (2019). Does market attention affect Bitcoin returns and volatility? Deci-
sions in Economics and Finance, 42(1), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10203-019-00258-7
Flori, A. (2019f). Cryptocurrencies in finance: Review and applications. International Journal of Theoretical
and Applied Finance. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219024919500201
Fonseca, V., Pacheco, L., & Lobão, J. (2020). Psychological barriers in the cryptocurrency market. Review of
Behavioral Finance, 12(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-03-2019-0041
Galvao, A., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C., Ferreira, J., & Ratten, V. (2019). Triple helix and its evolution:
A systematic literature review. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(3), 812–833.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-10-2018-0103
García-Corral, F. J., Cordero-García, J. A., de Pablo-Valenciano, J., & Uribe-Toril, J. (2022). A bibliometric
review of cryptocurrencies: how have they grown. Financial Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-
021-00306-5
Gil-Alana, L. A., Abakah, E. J. A., & Rojo, M. F. R. (2020f). Cryptocurrencies and stock market indices. Are
They Related Research in International Business and Finance, 51, 101063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ri
baf.2019.101063
Giudici, P., & Abu-Hashish, I. (2019). What determines bitcoin exchange prices? A network VAR approach.
Finance Research Letters, 28, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.05.013
Gkillas, K., & Katsiampa, P. (2018). An application of extreme value theory to cryptocurrencies. Economics
Letters, 164, 109–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.01.020
Grobys, K., & Huynh, T. L. D. (2022). When Tether says “JUMP!” Bitcoin asks “How low?” Finance Research
Grobys, K., & Sapkota, N. (2019). Cryptocurrencies and momentum. Economics Letters, 180, 6–10. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.03.028
Grobys, K., & Sapkota, N. (2020). Predicting cryptocurrency defaults. Applied Economics, 52(46), 5060–5076.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1752903
Grobys, K., Ahmed, S., & Sapkota, N. (2020g). Technical trading rules in the cryptocurrency market. Finance
Research Letters, 32, 101396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.101396
Guégan, D., & Renault, T. (2021). Does investor sentiment on social media provide robust information for
Bitcoin returns predictability? Finance Research Letters, 38, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.10
1494
Hafner, C. M. (2020). Testing for bubbles in cryptocurrencies with time-varying volatility. Journal of Financial
Econometrics, 18(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nby023
Hairudin, A., Sifat, I. M., Mohamad, A., & Yusof, Y. (2020h). Cryptocurrencies: A survey on acceptance,
governance and market dynamics. International Journal of Finance and Economics. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ijfe.2392
Haq, I. U., Maneengam, A., Chupradit, S., Suksatan, W., & Huo, C. (2021). Economic policy uncertainty and
cryptocurrency market as a risk management avenue: A systematic review. Risks, 9(9), 1–24. https://doi.
org/10.3390/risks9090163
Hashemi Joo, M., Nishikawa, Y., & Dandapani, K. (2020). Announcement effects in the cryptocurrency market.
Applied Economics, 52(44), 4794–4808. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1745747
Hasso, T., Pelster, M., & Breitmayer, B. (2019). Who trades cryptocurrencies, how do they trade it, and how
do they perform? Evidence from brokerage accounts. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance,
23, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.009
Hattori, T., & Ishida, R. (2020). The relationship between arbitrage in futures and spot markets and Bitcoin
price movements: Evidence from the Bitcoin markets. Journal of Futures Markets. https://doi.org/10.
1002/fut.22171
Herskind, L., Katsikouli, P., & Dragoni, N. (2020). Privacy and Cryptocurrencies - A Systematic Literature
Review. IEEE Access, 8, 54044–54059. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2980950
Hu, Y., Valera, H. G. A., & Oxley, L. (2019a). Market efficiency of the top market-cap cryptocurrencies:
Further evidence from a panel framework. Finance Research Letters, 31(February), 138–145. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.04.012
Hu, B., McInish, T., Miller, J., & Zeng, L. (2019b). Intraday price behavior of cryptocurrencies. Finance
Hudson, R., & Urquhart, A. (2021). Technical trading and cryptocurrencies. Annals of Operations Research,
297(1–2), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03357-1
Huynh, T. L. D. (2022). When elon musk changes his tone, does bitcoin adjust its tune? Computational
Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-021-10230-6
Huynh, L. D., & T. (2019). Spillover risks on cryptocurrency markets: A look from VAR-SVAR granger
causality and student’s-t copulas. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(2), 52. https://doi.org/
10.3390/jrfm12020052
123
Huynh, T. L. D., Nguyen, S. P., & Duong, D. (2018). Contagion risk measured by return among cryptocur-
rencies. International Econometric Conference of Vietnam: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73150-
6_71
Huynh, T. L. D., Nasir, M. A., Vo, X. V., & Nguyen, T. T. (2020a). “Small things matter most”: The spillover
effects in the cryptocurrency market and gold as a silver bullet. North American Journal of Economics
and Finance, 54, 101277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2020.101277
Huynh, T. L. D., Shahbaz, M., Nasir, M. A., & Ullah, S. (2020b). Financial modelling, risk management of
energy instruments and the role of cryptocurrencies. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10479-020-03680-y
Huynh, T. L. D., Ahmed, R., Nasir, M. A., Shahbaz, M., & Huynh, N. Q. A. (2021). The nexus between black
and digital gold: evidence from US markets. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1
0479-021-04192-z
Jalal, R. N. U. D., Alon, I., & Paltrinieri, A. (2021). A bibliometric review of cryptocurrencies as a financial
asset. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1939001
Jiang, S., Li, X., & Wang, S. (2021f). Exploring evolution trends in cryptocurrency study: From underlying
technology to economic applications. Finance Research Letters, 38, 101532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
frl.2020.101532
Kaiser, L. (2019h). Seasonality in cryptocurrencies. Finance Research Letters, 31, 232–238. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.frl.2018.11.007
Kajtazi, A., & Moro, A. (2019). The role of bitcoin in well diversified portfolios: A comparative global study.
International Review of Financial Analysis, 61, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2018.10.003
Kalyvas, A., Li, Z., Papakyriakou, P., & Sakkas, A. (2021). If you feel good, I feel good! The mediating effect
of behavioral factors on the relationship between industry indices and Bitcoin returns. European Journal
of Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2021.1976665
Katsiampa, P. (2017). Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A comparison of GARCH models. Economics Letters,
158, 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.023
Katsiampa, P. (2019). Volatility co-movement between Bitcoin and Ether. Finance Research Letters, 30,
Keshari Jena, S., Tiwari, A. K., Doğan, B., & Hammoudeh, S. (2020). Are the top six cryptocurrencies efficient?
Evidence from time-varying long memory. International Journal of Finance and Economics, November
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2347
Khuntia, S., & Pattanayak, J. K. (2020). Adaptive long memory in volatility of intra-day bitcoin returns and
the impact of trading volume. Finance Research Letters, 32, 101077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.
12.025
Khuntia, S., & Pattanayak, J. K. (2021). Adaptive calendar effects and volume of extra returns in the cryp-
tocurrency market. International Journal of Emerging Markets. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-06-2020-
0682
Kim, W., Lee, J., & Kang, K. (2020). The effects of the introduction of Bitcoin futures on the volatility of
Bitcoin returns. Finance Research Letters, 33, 101204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.06.002
Kissell, R. (2014). Chapter 2 - Market Microstructure (R. B. T.-T. S. of A. T. and P. M. Kissell (ed.); pp. 47–85).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-401689-7.00002-7
Köchling, G., Müller, J., & Posch, P. N. (2019a). Does the introduction of futures improve the efficiency of
Bitcoin? Finance Research Letters, 30, 367–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.11.006
Köchling, G., Müller, J., & Posch, P. N. (2019b). Price delay and market frictions in cryptocurrency markets.
Economics Letters, 174, 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.10.025
Kostika, E., & Laopodis, N. T. (2020). Dynamic linkages among cryptocurrencies, exchange rates and global
equity markets. Studies in Economics and Finance, 37(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-01-
2019-0032
Koutmos, D. (2018a). Bitcoin returns and transaction activity. Economics Letters, 167, 81–85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.econlet.2018.03.021
Koutmos, D. (2018b). Liquidity uncertainty and Bitcoin’s market microstructure. Economics Letters, 172,
97–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.08.041
Kozlowski, S. E., Puleo, M. R., & Zhou, J. (2021). Cryptocurrency return reversals. Applied Economics Letters,
28(11), 887–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1784831
Kurka, J. (2019). Do cryptocurrencies and traditional asset classes influence each other? Finance Research
Letters, 31, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.04.018
Kyriazis, N., Papadamou, S., & Corbet, S. (2020). A systematic review of the bubble dynamics of cryptocur-
rency prices. Research in International Business and Finance, 54(May), 101254. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ribaf.2020.101254
123
Li, X., Li, S., & Xu, C. (2020a). Price clustering in Bitcoin market—An extension. Finance Research Letters.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.12.020
Li, Y., Zhang, W., Xiong, X., & Wang, P. (2020b). Does size matter in the cryptocurrency market? Applied
Economics Letters, 27(14), 1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2019.1673298
Li, R., Li, S., Yuan, D., & Zhu, H. (2021). Investor attention and cryptocurrency: Evidence from wavelet-based
quantile Granger causality analysis. Research in International Business and Finance, 56, 101389. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2021.101389
Liang, X., Yang, Y., & Wang, J. (2016). Internet finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric
analysis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Business (ICEB), 386–398.
Lim, K.-P., Hooy, C.-W., Chang, K.-B., & Brooks, R. (2016). Factor pricing ofcryptocurrencies. North Amer-
ican Journal of Economics and Finance, 36, 1–28.
Liu, W. (2019j). Portfolio diversification across cryptocurrencies. Finance Research Letters, 29, 200–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.07.010
López-Martín, C., Benito Muela, S., & Arguedas, R. (2021). Efficiency in cryptocurrency markets: new
evidence. Eurasian Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-021-00182-5
Luu, T., Huynh, D., Burggraf, T., & Wang, M. (2020). Gold, platinum, and expected Bitcoin returns. Journal
of Multinational Financial Management, 56, 100628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2020.100628
Manahov, V., & Urquhart, A. (2021h). The efficiency of Bitcoin: A strongly typed genetic programming
approach to smart electronic Bitcoin markets. International Review of Financial Analysis, 73, 101629.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101629
Mark, M., Sila, J., & Weber, T. A. (2020). Quantifying endogeneity of cryptocurrency markets. European
Journal of Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2020.1791925
Matkovskyy, R. (2019). Centralized and decentralized bitcoin markets: Euro vs USD vs GBP. Quarterly Review
of Economics and Finance, 71, 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2018.09.005
Mbanga, C. L. (2019). The day-of-the-week pattern of price clustering in Bitcoin. Applied Economics Letters,
26(10), 807–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2018.1497844
Mensi, W., Al-Yahyaee, K. H., & Kang, S. H. (2019a). Structural breaks and double long memory of cryp-
tocurrency prices: A comparative analysis from Bitcoin and Ethereum. Finance Research Letters, 29,
Mensi, W., Lee, Y. J., Al-Yahyaee, K. H., Sensoy, A., & Yoon, S. M. (2019b). Intraday downward/upward
multifractality and long memory in Bitcoin and Ethereum markets: An asymmetric multifractal detrended
fluctuation analysis. Finance Research Letters, 31(March), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.03
.029
Mensi, W., Rehman, M. U., Al-Yahyaee, K. H., Al-Jarrah, I. M. W., & Kang, S. H. (2019c). Time frequency
analysis of the commonalities between Bitcoin and major cryptocurrencies: Portfolio risk management
implications. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 48(March), 283–294. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.najef.2019.02.013
Merediz-Solá, I., & Bariviera, A. F. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of bitcoin scientific production. Research
in International Business and Finance, 50(May), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.06.008
Milunovich, G. (2018). Cryptocurrencies, mainstream asset classes and risk factors: A study of connectedness.
Australian Economic Review, 51(4), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12303
Morillon, T. (2021). Bitcoin’s value proposition: Shorting expansionary monetary policies. Studies in Eco-
nomics and Finance, May. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-03-2021-0107
Morisse, M. (2015). Cryptocurrencies and bitcoin: Charting the research landscape. 2015 Americas Conference
on Information Systems, AMCIS 2015, 1–16.
Noda, A. (2021). On the evolution of cryptocurrency market efficiency. Applied Economics Letters, 28(6),
433–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1758617
Panagiotidis, T., Stengos, T., & Vravosinos, O. (2019k). The effects of markets, uncertainty and search intensity
on bitcoin returns. International Review of Financial Analysis, 63, 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
irfa.2018.11.002
Phillip, A., Chan, J., & Peiris, S. (2018). A new look at cryptocurrencies. Economics Letters, 163, 6–9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.11.020
Platanakis, E., Sutcliffe, C., & Urquhart, A. (2018). Optimal vs naïve diversification in cryptocurrencies.
Rahardja, U., Aini, Q., Purnamaharahap, E., & Raihan, R. (2021). Good, bad and dark bitcoin. Aptisi Trans-
actions on Technopreneurship (ATT), 3(2), 115–119.
Rehman, M. U. (2020j). Do bitcoin and precious metals do any good together? An extreme dependence and
risk spillover analysis. Resources Policy, 68, 101737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101737
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Keogh, G., & J. (2021). Cryptocurrencies in modern finance: A literature review.
Etikonomi, 20(1), 93–118.
123
Rialti, R., Marzi, G., Ciappei, C., & Busso, D. (2019). Big data and dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric
analysis and systematic literature review. Management Decision, 57(8), 2052–2068. https://doi.org/10.
1108/MD-07-2018-0821
Sadeghi Moghadam, M. R., Safari, H., & Yousefi, N. (2021). Clustering quality management models and
methods: Systematic literature review and text-mining analysis approach. Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, 32(3–4), 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1540927
Sapkota, N., & Grobys, K. (2021). Asset market equilibria in cryptocurrency markets: Evidence from a study
of privacy and non-privacy coins Journal of International Financial Markets. Institutions and Money, 74,
101402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2021.101402
Sarpong, M. A. (2022). A review of cryptocurrencies research. International Journal of Blockchains and
Cryptocurrencies, 3(2), 131–140.
Sensoy, A. (2019l). The inefficiency of Bitcoin revisited: A high-frequency analysis with alternative currencies.
Finance Research Letters, 28, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.04.002
Shahzad, S. J. H., Bouri, E., Ahmad, T., Naeem, M. A., & Vo, X. V. (2021). The pricing of bad contagion in
cryptocurrencies: A four-factor pricing model. Finance Research Letters, 41, 101797. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.frl.2020.101797
Shen, D., Urquhart, A., & Wang, P. (2020k). A three-factor pricing model for cryptocurrencies. Finance
Research Letters, 34, 101248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.07.021
Shynkevich, A. (2020). Pricing efficiency and market efficiency of two bitcoin funds. Applied Economics
Letters, 27(20), 1623–1628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2019.1707760
Shynkevich, A. (2021i). Impact of bitcoin futures on the informational efficiency of bitcoin spot market.
Journal of Futures Markets, October. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.22164
Sifat, I. M., Mohamad, A., Mohamed Shariff, M. S., & Bin. (2019). Lead-Lag relationship between Bitcoin
and Ethereum: Evidence from hourly and daily data. Research in International Business and Finance,
50(June), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.06.012
Silva, E. C., & Da Silva, M. M. (2022). Motivations to regulate cryptocurrencies: A systematic literature review
of stakeholders and drivers. International Journal of Blockchains and Cryptocurrencies, 2(4), 360–388.
Sousa, A., Calçada, E., Rodrigues, P., & Pinto Borges, A. (2022). Cryptocurrency adoption: A systematic
literature review and bibliometric analysis. EuroMed Journal of Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-
01-2022-0003
Su, X., Zhan, W., & Li, Y. (2021). Quantile dependence between investor attention and cryptocurrency returns:
Evidence from time and frequency domain analyses. Applied Economics, 00(00), 1–33. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00036846.2021.1940826
Subramaniam, S., & Chakraborty, M. (2020). Investor attention and cryptocurrency returns: Evidence from
quantile causality approach. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 21(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15
427560.2019.1629587
Takaishi, T. (2020). Rough volatility of Bitcoin. Finance Research Letters, 32, 101379. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.frl.2019.101379
Takaishi, T., & Adachi, T. (2018). Taylor effect in Bitcoin time series. Economics Letters, 172, 5–7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.07.046
Takaishi, T., & Adachi, T. (2020). Market Efficiency, Liquidity, and Multifractality of Bitcoin: A Dynamic
Study. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 27(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-019-09286-0
Tan, Z., Huang, Y., & Xiao, B. (2021). Value at risk and returns of cryptocurrencies before and after the
crash: long-run relations and fractional cointegration. Research in International Business and Finance,
56, 101347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101347
Thampanya, N., Nasir, M. A., & Huynh, T. L. D. (2020). Asymmetric correlation and hedging effectiveness of
gold & cryptocurrencies: From pre-industrial to the 4th industrial revolution✰. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 159, 120195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120195
Tiwari, A. K., Kumar, S., & Pathak, R. (2019). Modelling the dynamics of Bitcoin and Litecoin: GARCH
versus stochastic volatility models. Applied Economics, 51(37), 4073–4082. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
036846.2019.1588951
Tiwari, A. K., Adewuyi, A. O., Albulescu, C. T., & Wohar, M. E. (2020). Empirical evidence of extreme
dependence and contagion risk between main cryptocurrencies. North American Journal of Economics
and Finance, 51, 101083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2019.101083
Tran, V. L., & Leirvik, T. (2020). Efficiency in the markets of crypto-currencies. Finance Research Letters,
35, 101382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.101382
Troster, V., Tiwari, A. K., Shahbaz, M., & Macedo, D. N. (2019). Bitcoin returns and risk: A general GARCH
and GAS analysis. Finance Research Letters, 30, 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.09.014
Tu, Z., & Xue, C. (2019m). Effect of bifurcation on the interaction between Bitcoin and Litecoin. Finance
123
Tzouvanas, P., Kizys, R., & Tsend-Ayush, B. (2020). Momentum trading in cryptocurrencies: Short-term
returns and diversification benefits. Economics Letters, 191, 108728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.
2019.108728
Urquhart, A. (2017). Price clustering in Bitcoin. Economics Letters, 159, 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
econlet.2017.07.035
Urquhart, A., & Zhang, H. (2019). Is Bitcoin a hedge or safe haven for currencies? An intraday analysis.
International Review of Financial Analysis, 63(February), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2019.02
.009
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and
VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
Vidal-Tomás, D. (2021). An investigation of cryptocurrency data: the market that never sleeps. Quantitative
Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2021.1930124
Vidal-Tomás, D., Ibáñez, A. M., & Farinós, J. E. (2019a). Weak efficiency of the cryptocurrency market: A
market portfolio approach. Applied Economics Letters, 26(19), 1627–1633. https://doi.org/10.1080/13
504851.2019.1591583
Vidal-Tomás, D., Ibáñez, A. M., & Farinós, J. E. (2019b). Herding in the cryptocurrency market: CSSD and
CSAD approaches. Finance Research Letters, 30, 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.09.008
Wang, P., Zhang, W., Li, X., & Shen, D. (2019). Is cryptocurrency a hedge or a safe haven for international
indices? A comprehensive and dynamic perspective. Finance Research Letters, 31(January), 1–18. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.04.031
Wei, W. C. (2018a). Liquidity and market efficiency in cryptocurrencies. Economics Letters, 168, 21–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.04.003
Wei, W. C. (2018b). The impact of Tether grants on Bitcoin. Economics Letters, 171, 19–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.econlet.2018.07.001
Wu, X., Wu, L., & Chen, S. (2021). Long memory and efficiency of Bitcoin during COVID-19. Applied
Economics, 00(00), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1962513
Yang, Y., & Zhao, Z. (2021). Large cryptocurrency-portfolios: Efficient sorting with leverage constraints.
Applied Economics, 53(21), 2398–2411. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1859457
Yaya, O. O. S., Ogbonna, A. E., Mudida, R., & Abu, N. (2021). Market efficiency and volatility persistence of
cryptocurrency during pre- and post-crash periods of Bitcoin: Evidence based on fractional integration.
International Journal of Finance and Economics, 26(1), 1318–1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.1851
Yue, Y., Li, X., Zhang, D., & Wang, S. (2021a). How cryptocurrency affects economy? A network analysis
using bibliometric methods. International Review of Financial Analysis, 77(71988101), 101869. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101869
Yue, W., Zhang, S., & Zhang, Q. (2021b). Asymmetric News Effects on Cryptocurrency Liquidity: an Event
Study Perspective. Finance Research Letters, 41, 101799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101799
Zhang, W., Wang, P., Li, X., & Shen, D. (2018). Some stylized facts of the cryptocurrency market. Applied
Economics, 50(55), 5950–5965. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1488076
Zhang, S., Aerts, W., Lu, L., & Pan, H. (2019). Readability of token whitepaper and ICO first-day return.
Zhang, S., Hou, X., & Ba, S. (2021). What determines interest rates for bitcoin lending? Research in Interna-
tional Business and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2021.101443
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
123

Cryptocurrency Market Microstructure: A Systematic Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cryptocurrency Market Microstructure: A Systematic Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cryptocurrency Market Microstructure: A Systematic Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annals of Operations Research (2024) 332:1035–1068

ORIGINAL - SURVEY OR EXPOSITION

Cryptocurrency market microstructure: a systematic

Keywords Cryptocurrencies · Bitcoin · Efficiency · Market microstructure · Systematic

3.1 Cryptocurrency market top articles

Fig. 1 Citations and publications over time

Fig. 2 Titles and Abstracts word cloud

Table 1 Shows the top 10 articles

Rank Article Citations

1 Corbet et al. (2018) 348

3.2 Cryptocurrency market authors network

Table 2 Shows the top 10 authors by number of citations

Rank Author Publications Citations Citations per publications

1 Katsiampa, Paraskevi 5 522 104.40

3.3 Cryptocurrency market journals network

Table 3 Shows the top 10 journals by number of citations

Rank Journal Publications Citations Citations per publications

1 Economics letters 21 1651 78.62

Fig. 4 Most contributive research

3.4 Cryptocurrency market institutions network

Table 4 Shows the top 10 institutions by number of citations

Rank Institution Publications Citations Citations per Times higher

1 Sheffield hallam 4 507 126.75 801–1000

3.5 Cryptocurrency market countries network

Table 5 shows the top 10 countries by number of citations

Rank Country Publications Citations Citations per publications

1 England 35 1920 54.86

Fig. 7 Publications by country world map

Table 6 shows Countries’ publications and citation scaled by number of universities

Country Publications Citations Number of Publications per Citations per

United 36 2093 118 0.305 17.74

4 Literature findings on cryptocurrency market microstructure

4.1 Is the cryptocurrency market efficient?

4.1.1 Cryptocurrency market efficiency

4.1.2 Cryptocurrency market inefficiency

4.1.3 Adaptive market hypothesis

4.2 The role of liquidity in the cryptocurrency market

4.3 Are the cryptocurrency markets volatile?

4.4 Does uncertainty affect the cryptocurrency market?

4.5 Cryptocurrency’s prices behavior

4.6 Cryptocurrency market behavior and connectedness

4.6.1 Cryptocurrency market behavior

4.6.2 Cryptocurrency market interconnectedness

From the analyses of studies regarding cryptocurrencies interconnectedness we found evi-

Additionally, there is also evidence reporting weak or no interconnectedness in the cryp-

4.6.3 Cryptocurrency market connectedness to other markets

With regard to cryptocurrencies connectedness to other markets, we found evidence of a

4.7 Investment properties of the cryptocurrency market

4.7.1 Characterization of cryptocurrency properties

4.7.2 Traders and investors of the cryptocurrency market

4.7.3 Trading strategies in the cryptocurrency market

4.8 Cryptocurrency’s market future research venues

Literature topic Main findings Future research

Literature topic Main findings Future research

Literature topic Main findings Future research

Literature topic Main findings Future research

ical risk, climate policy uncertainty, domestic political risk

You might also like