Blockchain stuff is also pretty famous for fraudsters writing technical gobbley-gook in order to hoodwink investors,so its not like the current system is without issue.

> Blockchain stuff is also pretty famous for fraudsters writing technical gobbley-gook in order to hoodwink investors

Caveat emptor [1] in particular holds for investors who invest huge sums of money.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor

I was sure that your footnote would be some link about the increasing danger of being say 90% of a liquidity pool, made me chuckle when I realized it was just defining the term

> Everyone in the blockchain space self-publishes all relevant material hence a journal like this is completely pointless.

Hopefully one can do both, as is standard practice for lots of institutions these days.

> It also slows down the rate of publishing by requiring ridiculously tedious formatting requirements all so a self-elected panel of experts can deem if a piece of content is worthwhile.

One can self-publish simultaneously and continuously post revised editions as review is received. This is pretty ubiquitous.

> Of course, to get through this process we end up with a 'paper' with no runnable code.

This is entirely voluntary. The most frequent offenders when it comes to not uploading code are companies who think they're giving up IP by publishing research code. Institutions (and companies, lately) frequently cite github.com url's in papers in the machine learning space. I see no reason why they couldn't with a journal submission.

Self publishing has value, and its value is not reduced by peer review publications. No one sets to lose anything from this, except maybe dishonest people.

Lol do you even know what the concept of peer review means? Not a big fan of what it’s current iteration is in academia but it has its place.

Shouldn't those issues be addressed head-on for the field to flourish though? It seems to me that if peer reviewers in the field hold this perception, many more outside of the fields do as well. If a paper makes a claim that a technology solves a problem, and then fails to support that claim to a sufficient degree such that it cannot pass peer review, that sounds like way more than a nitpick.

Not sure if this comment is brilliant satire or serious.

Doesn't that in itself say more about the crypto tech space than I could ever have tried to spell out?

I don't know. I would find it to be useful if I am doing research based investing in Crypto.

I have skimmed through two papers- the intraday behavior one and the abnormal return one. I enjoyed some of the insights as a layperson. Those methodology can be applied to other coins that are not bitcoin or other investable assets. Also these papers have aggregated a pretty good collection of other papers in their citations. So all in all, I see value in this journal.

Historically it's been shown that academia can be a very successful incubator of nascent technologies, ones that often bloom into billion dollar industries. From the internet to robotics to medicine, it's been shown time and again that academia is effective in this regard. If you like blockchain technology, you should want academics focused on this work; they have access to millions of dollars in government grants just waiting to be applied to this area. Academics need legitimate venues to publish peer reviewed-research (because that's how they convince the government to give them millions of dollars in grants. You don't get grants by self-publishing).

I do agree that structuring this as a print journal is pointless and a relic if a past era.

This should be something implemented using something like science-octopus.org or osf.io

Of course the crypto space is allergic to accountability mechanisms.