Risk measurement models for top 10 cryptocurrencies: A comparison of VaR and volatility models

  • 16 Views
  • 2 Downloads

Creative Commons License DMCA.com Protection Status
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Abstract
This study evaluates and compares risk measurement models for ten major cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether, Ripple, Dogecoin, Cardano, Binance Coin, Polkadot, Solana, and USD Coin. Using daily log-return data from January 2017 to October 2024, the analysis applies Modified Cornish-Fisher Value-at-Risk and standard, exponential, threshold, and Markov-switching generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models. The main comparison is conducted at the 99% confidence level, while model reliability is assessed through out-of-sample backtesting using 500 observations and the Kupiec unconditional coverage and Christoffersen conditional coverage tests. The results reveal substantial heterogeneity in cryptocurrency risk. Modified Cornish-Fisher Value-at-Risk produces highly sensitive estimates for assets with extreme skewness and kurtosis, particularly Ripple, Cardano, and Dogecoin. However, no single model performs consistently better across all assets. Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency for which all tested models pass both backtesting procedures. The Markov-switching specification provides acceptable coverage for Bitcoin, Ripple, and Dogecoin but does not consistently outperform conventional volatility models. Standard and asymmetric volatility models provide stronger support for Cardano, Binance Coin, and Polkadot, whereas Ethereum, Solana, and USD Coin remain difficult to model under the examined specifications. These findings demonstrate that cryptocurrency risk measurement requires asset-specific model selection based on both estimated loss magnitude and formal backtesting evidence.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Price dynamics of the top 10 cryptocurrencies during the observation period (January 2017 – October 2024)
    • Figure 2. Return chart of 10 cryptocurrencies
    • Table 1. Results of data descriptive statistics
    • Table 2. Estimation results of the Value at Risk (VaR) method
    • Table 3. Estimation results of the Generalized AutoRegressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH) method
    • Table 4. Estimation results of the Exponential Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (EGARCH) method
    • Table 5. Estimation results of the Threshold Generalized AutoRegressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (TGARCH) method
    • Table 6. Estimation results of the Markov Switching Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (MSGARCH) method
    • Table 7. Comparison of crypto risk estimation (99%) with various methods
    • Table 8. VaR backtesting results using Kupiec and Christoffersen tests at the 99% confidence level
    • Conceptualization
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim, Farida Titik Kristanti, Hosam Alden Riyadh
    • Data curation
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim, Farida Titik Kristanti, Mailinda Tri Wahyuni
    • Formal Analysis
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim, Mailinda Tri Wahyuni
    • Funding acquisition
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim
    • Investigation
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim, Farida Titik Kristanti, Hosam Alden Riyadh
    • Project administration
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim
    • Resources
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim
    • Software
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim
    • Supervision
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim, Farida Titik Kristanti, Hosam Alden Riyadh
    • Validation
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim, Mailinda Tri Wahyuni
    • Writing – original draft
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim, Mailinda Tri Wahyuni
    • Writing – review & editing
      Dwi Fitrizal Salim, Farida Titik Kristanti, Hosam Alden Riyadh
    • Visualization
      Farida Titik Kristanti, Mailinda Tri Wahyuni
    • Methodology
      Hosam Alden Riyadh, Mailinda Tri Wahyuni