arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.35702

Weekend Crypto Volatility and Monday Market Risk

Pedram Ebadollahyvahed·Nneka Umeorah
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Cryptocurrencies trade continuously while major traditional markets close over the weekend. We examine whether weekend cryptocurrency volatility predicts Monday variance in equity, commodity and fixed-income markets. Using daily range-based variance measures for Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, the S&P 500, gold and a US Treasury ETF over 2017-2026, we augment heterogeneous autoregressive models with a common weekend cryptocurrency factor. Predictive content is weak before 2024 but significant thereafter. In the post-2024 sample, a one-standard-deviation increase in the factor is associated with 27-54% higher fitted Monday variance. Adding the factor reduces out-of-sample QLIKE losses by 11-22%, although statistical evidence varies across markets. Friday cryptocurrency volatility does not reproduce the result, and coin-specific variation adds no significant predictive information beyond the common factor. An endogenous procedure estimates a break in late 2023, during growing anticipation of US spot-Bitcoin ETF approval. However, ETF-flow interactions provide no evidence of amplification through greater measured Monday flow activity, leaving the mechanism unresolved. The findings suggest that calendar-specific volatility measures reveal predictive information that aggregate connectedness measures may obscure.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.ST

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Pedram Ebadollahyvahed, Nneka Umeorah. 2026-10-26. Weekend Crypto Volatility and Monday Market Risk. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.35702

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Multiscaling in the Rough Bergomi Model: A Tale of Tails

The rough Bergomi (rBergomi) model, characterised by its roughness parameter $H$, has been shown to exhibit multiscaling behaviour as $H$ approaches zero. Multiscaling has profound implications for financial modelling: it affects extreme risk estimation, influences optimal portfolio allocation across different time horizons, and challenges traditional option pricing approaches that assume uniscaling behaviours. Understanding whether multiscaling arises primarily from the roughness of volatility paths or from the resulting fat-tailed returns has important implications for financial modelling, option pricing, and risk management. This paper investigates the real source of this multiscaling behaviour by introducing a novel two-stage statistical testing procedure. In the first stage, we establish the presence of multiscaling in the rBergomi model against an uniscaling fractional Brownian motion process. We quantify multiscaling by using weighted least squares regression that accounts for heteroscedastic estimation errors across moments. In the second stage, we apply shuffled surrogates that preserve return distributions while destroying temporal correlations. This is done by using distance-based permutation tests robust to asymmetric null distributions. In order to validate our procedure, we check the robustness of the results by using synthetic processes with known multifractal properties, namely the Multifractal Random Walk (MRW) and the Fractional Lévy Stable Motion (FLSM). We provide compelling evidence that multiscaling in the rBergomi model arises primarily from fat-tailed return distributions rather than memory effects. Our findings suggest that the apparent multiscaling in rough volatility models is largely attributable to distributional properties rather than genuine temporal scaling behaviour.

q-fin.ST↗
arXiv2026

Fast Approximate Modular Inference for Option Price Prediction

A new approximate Bayesian inferential framework is proposed that exploits multiple information sources -- daily spot returns, high-frequency spot data and option prices -- and enables fast calculation of probabilistic predictions of future option prices. This approach operates directly from the theoretical option pricing model, and does not require an explicit statistical model, or likelihood, for the observed option prices. We demonstrate that our approach achieves predictive accuracy comparable to likelihood-based modular inference, despite not explicitly modelling option-pricing errors, while delivering substantial computational gains. Predictive accuracy based on the Heston option pricing model is illustrated empirically for short-maturity options, with the rapidity of real-time updates of the predictive distributions highlighted.

q-fin.ST↗
arXiv2026

What Prediction-Market Contracts Reveal at Launch: Trading Volume and Dispute Risk

Using a near-census of 802,863 resolved markets listed on Polymarket between January 2023 and May 2026, and only information available at listing (the market's title and description, named resolution source, and contract metadata), we predict lifetime trading volume and whether settlement is later disputed. Contract information predicts trading volume well (out-of-sample $R^2 = 0.747$ for log volume), and most of the signal is interpretable: market topic provides the largest gain ($+0.289$ $R^2$ over a $0.220$ contract-feature baseline), wording and resolution-rule design add smaller but measurable improvements ($+0.027$ combined), and neural text models add little beyond the interpretable features. This performance does not survive a period of platform change coinciding with a shift in listing formats: accuracy in predicting whether a market reaches \$1,000 falls from AUC $0.940$ under same-period evaluation to $0.577$ when training on past quarters and testing on later ones. The loss concentrates in markets whose question forms were absent from training (76.9% of test markets; on familiar forms the model still reaches $0.778$), and a decomposition attributes more of it to a changed relationship between contract characteristics and demand than to an outdated mapping from text to features. Dispute predictors are more stable but less precise: launch-time features rank dispute risk far better than chance (AUC $0.78$), yet at a 0.31% base rate precision is too low for case-by-case prediction (average precision $0.012$), so the scores suit ranking groups of markets rather than forecasting individual disputes.

q-fin.ST↗