The following point applies both to this specific article on bitcoin, and to the rest of the work my Mr Swedroe. I was puzzled to read that at BAM they 'pride themselves' on giving only advice 'based on evidence from peer-reviewed academic journals'. (the link provided by Swedroe at the end of his article is a blog by an academic).
As an academic myself, I know by experience that at least in my field (physics) peer-review doesn't say much about the value of a research piece. Peer review will exclude things that are clearly nonsense or that are not original work, or that go against established knowledge or assumptions, but a lot of extremely mediocre work can get published in peer-reviewed journals.
First of all there is the question of the impact factor of the Journal (you can publish very mediocre work if the impacat factor is low enough), then there is the question of the referees you get, a lot of them will be at least as concerned about you quoting their work as about the quality of your paper (we get many times referees reviews with suggestions to add some more articles in the references (the referee is anonymous but it's often easy to guess that the article they ask to add is theirs); then there is the question that just like there are exam techniques (to pass your exams succesfully) there are techniques to write up an article in such a way that it will pass the peeer-review process (these techniques have nothing to do with the quality of the work); then if an article is refused you can submit it to another journal (I have colleagues who keep submitting the same article half a dozen times till eventually they find a kind referee that will not refuse).
This academic paper on CAPM is also quite interesting: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2980847
This at least is my idea, based on my experience of academia albeit in a different subject. Also, I have corresponded with a money manager (whose small cap fund has consistently beaten the Russel 2000) and I found instructuve what he had to say about academics for example in the excerpt below, where he wrote on the difference between outside observers and participants in the market.
'The outside observers tend to be sceptics. For instance, Fama & French set out to prove the efficient market hypothesis. Paul Samuelson was humiliated by Buffett on the same matter. The participants know the hypothesis is preposterous. Thus when an observer such as Siegel or Dimson & Marsh or Fama & French find something out, the particpants’ reaction is fairly disinterested because they already know. Fama & French and the Nobel Committee may be impressed with themselves for finding an anomaly of a couple of per cent but the participants are asking a different question which is ‘how much can we make?’ . That is why O’Shaughnessy, who does run money, is interesting. He spins the data until he takes us to the edge of the public domain. Beyond that is a rather more complicated world that I’m not privy to but we get glimpses when we we’re told Jim Simons closed fund for employees only compounded at 48% for a while and Buffett said that if he had a small amount of money he could compound it at 50%.'