Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 22, 2022
Decision Letter - Vygintas Gontis, Editor

PONE-D-22-11926Cryptoasset networks: Flows and regular players in Bitcoin and XRPPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fujiwara,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please make all data underlying the findings in your manuscript fully available.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vygintas Gontis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"The authors would like to acknowledge Ripple, which is providing financial and technical support through its University Blockchain Research Initiative. H.A. would also like to thank Hiro Inoue for technical support on data-handling. Y.F. would like to thank Aleˇs Janda for providing an API of WalletExplorer.com. The work is partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers, 19K22032 and 20H02391, and by the Nomura Foundation (Grants for Social Science)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"Y.I.: A grant "University Blockchain Research Initiative" provided by Ripple, Inc. to Kyoto University

Y.F.: JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers, 19K22032 and 20H02391, and the Nomura Foundation (Grants for Social Science)

All the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, the authors propose an approach that uses “flow-weighted frequency” index to study the correlation between network characteristics and price of Bitcoin and XRP. In this approach, Bal-, In-, and Out-branches are found, and the temporal transitions among the three branches exist in Bitcoin, while does not exist in XRP.

Overall, this paper is well organized and contains some publishable material. However, two major problems exist. (1) Selecting the most significant period of one year as an observation period, it is doubtful whether the conclusions drawn are universal and representative. (2) the mathematical formula (11)-(13) are wrong and cannot achieve the purpose of dividing the set into three regions of 30 degrees. (3) in the Results section, the variation between some weeks and the rest of the year is not distinct enough to draw a clear conclusion.

In addition, apart from the fact that the research objects are Bitcoin and XRP, it is hard to judge whether the differences between the research methods in this paper and existing methods are large enough to be publishable.

Reviewer #2: The article covers an interesting topic of the flow of different users of the Bitcoin and Ripple networks. The discussion in this article is interesting. The authors try to connect changes in the number of different network users with the 2017/2018 market bubble. The analysis is quite attractive, but it covers only one particular example. The cryptocurrency market has changed and matured significantly since then - see for example https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.10.005, which makes this analysis historical. It will be really nice to see such kind of analysis for 2021 crypto bubble.

1. To have a direct comparison of price changes with changes in the number of network users, price changes could be also added in Figs. 3 and 4.

2. Did you try to calculate correlations between price changes or lagged price changes and ratio in/out in/bal out/bal players?

3. Is it possible to make any price prediction based on the number of active players or rations between various players?

4. "The ratio of Bal-players is larger before the peak, but after the peak, the ratio of In-players is larger." It is quite curious that there were more players after the peak and the price was sharply dropping?

5. "This fact suggests an abrupt change in the number of Players at the price peak seen in the upper panel of Fig. 4 for BTC regular players are due to a change in the number of non-identified regular players" this may be the effect of the influx of new players encouraged by the bull market?

Minor issues:

Line 203 P^XRP=32 not P^BTC=32

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

We thank the reviewer for the encouraging and thoughtful remarks and helpful suggestions. We have modified our manuscript in accordance to all of the raised points. Please find "response.pdf" for details.

Also please refer to the uploaded "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes" for the marked-up copy of our manuscript that highlights changes (in red) to the initial version, and also to the uploaded "Manuscript" for unmarked version of our revised paper without tracked changes.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: response.docx
Decision Letter - Vygintas Gontis, Editor

Cryptoasset networks: Flows and regular players in Bitcoin and XRP

PONE-D-22-11926R1

Dear Dr. Fujiwara,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vygintas Gontis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vygintas Gontis, Editor

PONE-D-22-11926R1

Cryptoasset networks: Flows and regular players in Bitcoin and XRP

Dear Dr. Fujiwara:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vygintas Gontis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .