Fig 1.
The methodology of proposed two-stage framework for enhancing cryptocurrency portfolio performance.
Table 1.
Summary of employed MADM methods and corresponding references.
Table 2.
Summary of descriptive statistics for selected cryptocurrency assets.
Table 3.
Comprehensive criteria for evaluating cryptocurrency performance.
Fig 2.
Schematic representation of the AHP model for weighting evaluating cryptocurrency criteria.
Table 4.
Weights assigned to each criterion based on AHP method.
Fig 3.
Visual representation of a triangular fuzzy number.
Fig 4.
Visual representation of a trapezoid fuzzy number.
Fig 5.
Credibility measures for a triangular fuzzy variable.
Fig 6.
Credibility measures for a trapezoidal fuzzy variable.
Table 5.
Decision matrix for cryptocurrency asset preselection.
Table 6.
Cryptocurrency rankings according to different methods.
Fig 7.
Spearman correlation coefficients among 13 selected MADM methods.
Table 7.
Combined results of 13 methods using the mean rank approach.
Table 8.
Pairwise comparison matrix of 47 cryptocurrency assets.
Table 9.
Combined results of 13 methods using the Borda count and Copeland approaches.
Table 10.
Categorization of cryptocurrency assets based on Copeland method results.
Table 11.
Trapezoidal fuzzy representation of cryptocurrency returns expectations.
Table 12.
Asset weight allocations for top 10 assets under different cardinality constraints.
Table 13.
Asset weight allocations for larger asset groups: top 20, 30, 40, and 47.