From the abstract of an article in vol. 6 (most recent): > We show that, contrary to the usual implications of network effects, they do not serve to concentrat

From the abstract of an article in vol. 6 (most recent): > We show that, contrary to the usual implications of network effects, they do not serve to concentrate the cryptocurrency market, nor do they accord any one cryptocurrency a definitive competitive advantage, nor are they consistent enough to be reliable valuation tools. Therefore, while network effects do occur in cryptocurrency networks, they are not (yet) a defining feature of the cryptocurrency market as a whole. In the paper: > we acknowledge that addresses with non-zero balance still do not reflect a one-to-one mapping between addresses and actual users. Not only can a single user have multiple addresses, but also a single address can represent multiple users So, I can understand their arguments and their research, but it feels fundamentally flawed, because it's impossible to quantify the number of users of a blockchain. Am I wrong here? 4 of the 7 articles in vol. 6 are particularly about price activity, not underlying technology. I wonder why. I hope to see more peer-reviewed articles covering protocol-level advances, or perhaps more socioeconomic topics. Maybe that's too fuzzy for Ledger's editors?