Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The close price of (a) BTC, (b) ETH and (c) ETH/BTC during the period 1/1/2019 to 07/06/2022 (source: https://www.cryptodatadownload.com).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Comparing the obtained benefits between the conventional cost variation and implementation of coin conversion.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The framework of CCPM.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The average of hourly ETH/BTC prices in each day of estimation step (a) and obtained T2j statistics (b). The current day is at the end of the chart (26/02/2022). The green line in panel (a) is the average of ETH/BTC prices in the estimation step which is called RP (0.0702). The red lines in panel (b) are the LCLT and UCLT.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The average of hourly ETH/BTC prices in each day of Phase II data (a) and obtained T2j statistics (b). Due to 6 (NOC + 1) consecutive signals, a decision about a buy or sell action is needed at 15/04/2022. The green line in panel (a) is the average of ETH/BTC prices in Phase II which is called CP (0.0705). The red lines in panel (b) are the LCLT and UCLT.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

The average ETH/BTC hourly price after the end of Phase I to the end of dataset.

The first vertical line is the time of a sell signal (15/04/2022) and the second indicates the time that the price relative decrement would be smaller than TR (01/05/2022). The subsequent days (after the second vertical line) are only plotted to show the general decreasing patterns.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

The sensitivity analysis of NPH through different values of TR.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Sensitivity analysis of NOC through different values of TR.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

The performance of MACD, RSI and CCPM (NPH and NOC were set at 20 and 10 respectively) approaches through different values of TR.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparing CCPM with random strategy in term of RUS (a) and ADDP (b) criteria.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 5.

The performance of Hoteling T2 control chart in the existence of within and between profile auto-correlation in term of ARL, SDRL and MRL criteria when there are artificial shifts in intercept, slope and standard deviation parameters.

More »

Table 5 Expand