I think
The recent Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences or Nobel prize (as commonly known) was actually awarded to an economist (Fama) who claimed that markets are efficient and any prediction of it's movement is fruitless. Isn't the Bitcoin price random too?
Furthermore, we can even fit Robert Schiller's theory into it.
Schiller isn't really a fan of the efficient market hypothesis as he regularly calls it a half-truth. He is much more about sentiments and behavioral economics and I think someone like him would have had some academic interest in the phenomena. But he doesn't.
With such similarities, why isn't research being done in the Bitcoins? There's so little to read. We pretty much end up with Satoshi's paper which is more cryptography and less economics.
Exactly. Most are just opinion pieces when it comes to the "top" economists. I think none of them like this idea of Bitcoin being against the power of Feds. Policy and academia stay pretty close and really just feed each other. With the latest ideas being about that countries like the US can essentially print without limit, no wonder that they find Bitcoin's capped supply antithetical.
Other "researchers" are busy trying to become part of the next wannabe Po-"Something" currency which claims to solve the trilemma. Most times they get paid in tokens and it is way more lucrative than spending time on studying Bitcoin and the community.