Broad and sweeping claims about the digital asset industry are likely to result in incorrect conclusions.
Even as correlations have declined, macro is likely still an important factor.
Bitcoin narrowly posted a gain for February, but what does the past say about what March may hold?
The Digital Asset Industry is More Nuanced Than Often Portrayed
With a flurry of regulatory activity and changes underfoot with the service providers that support the digital asset industry, we have noticed an increasing trend of industry pundits making sweeping claims about these events without the careful reading or proper context that makes for insightful analysis. We think it is important to understand that the digital asset industry, including the assets, the service providers, the regulators, the legislators, and the practices employed, are not all the same, and interpreting them as such is likely to lead to false conclusions. Below, we highlight a couple of examples.
Banking Moves
This week Bloomberg reported that retail clients at Kraken could no longer rely on Signature Bank to process deposits and withdrawals. Observers in this industry continue to point to events like this as evidence of the blanket de-banking of digital asset service providers. But this week, with issues continuing for embattled bank Silvergate, a host of digital asset companies including LedgerX, Coinbase Prime, Galaxy, Cboe Digital, and Paxos moved banking partners, some of them to Signature Bank. This is clearly at odds with the de-banking narrative shared by many industry observers. As it relates to NYDIG, since inception we have maintained a diverse set of relationships in all our business lines to minimize risk to our client’s and firm’s capital and, critically, to ensure no interruption to our business operations; this continues to be the case.
Securities Enforcement
Another blanket misinterpretation has been the implications of enforcement actions from the SEC, such as the civil charges and settlement with regard to Kraken and their staking service. After the news, observers started to speculate about Coinbase and their staking service, but Coinbase quickly published a blog post outlining its belief that its staking services should not constitute securities-related activity. The reality is that the Howey Test, often the litmus test for what is a security, depends on the “facts and circumstances.” It could be that how Coinbase designed and offered its staking service might be substantially different than Kraken’s service. It is also important to note that the Howey case is not the only important case in determining what constitutes a security.
Securities Classifications
Finally, on the asset classification front, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has ratcheted up the rhetoric recently that “everything other than bitcoin” is likely a security. While that might be the Chairman’s and even the broader SEC’s view, there are important legal cases going on that may affect that viewpoint. For example, the outcomes of the Ripple litigation and the Wahi insider trading case can set legal precedents with regard to securities definitions for digital assets and are therefore important items to watch going forward.
Correlations with Equities Decline, but Macro Still a Factor
Bitcoin’s correlation with US equities, an often-discussed item, has declined in recent months from the mid-2022 highs. We think part of that has to do with the calamitous events of 2022 that affected crypto markets, but not other financial markets, and also the repeating bitcoin cycles, which appear to be taking hold once again. Even with the declining correlations, it is important for investors to understand that even though correlation with equities has been consistently elevated since the economic response to the Covid-19 crisis kicked in, bitcoin still provides diversification benefits, although not at the same levels as it once did when its correlation with equities meandered about 0.0.
Even with the lessened correlation, it is unlikely that bitcoin will be able to entirely escape the force withdrawing liquidity from financial markets: increasing interest rates. While it seemed that macro factors like interest rates were receding into the rearview mirror with decelerating inflation trends, unfortunately, that view is proving to be short-lived. Recent inflation data have shown that inflation remains stubbornly difficult to snuff out, something we wrote about when looking at the inflationary period of the 1970s and 1980s. Our conclusion was that it required a second interest rate hiking campaign before inflation finally eased, something that might likewise be required for the current bout of inflation. Given where forward rates expectations have headed, it seems like the market is concluding something similar.
Bitcoin Ekes Out a Monthly Gain
The price of bitcoin rose 0.8% in the month of February, bringing its year-to-date return to 40.6%. This slight gain comes during a flurry of regulatory activity and commotion in the crypto banking infrastructure, causing uncertainty for some industry participants and outside observers. In addition, macro conditions and declining equity markets (despite the declining correlations with crypto) added substantial headwinds during the month. The crypto industry was buoyed by renewed optimism for an opening up of China markets led by regulatory clarity in Hong Kong. March has been a very mixed month for performance, often attributed to tax-driven selling in the US ahead of the April 15th deadline for individual filing. Our own analysis of the tax anomaly was very inconclusive, so despite the narrative, we wouldn’t give it too much weight. Plus, it is not clear how the losses sustained over the past year might affect holder behavior this year. The months of March following big drawdown years 2014 and 2018, so March of 2015 and 2019, were mixed for performance, with -3.6% and +7.7% returns.
Market Update
The price of bitcoin declined 2.0% this week as the gravity of macroeconomic conditions seemed to weigh on the asset. Bitcoin’s price dropped abruptly after the close price displayed here and the lack of fundamental news left many scratching their heads. With futures liquidations light on a notional basis, our guess is that thin market liquidity and off-side positioning by some levered long traders likely caused the issue. Given the increasingly difficult rate outlook described above, equities fell on the week. The S&P 500 was down 0.7% and the Nasdaq Composite was down 1.1%. Gold rallied 1.2% on the week and oil jumped 3.7%. With the higher rate outlook, bonds slumped on the week with investment grade corporate bonds down 1.2%, high yield corporate bonds down 0.3%, and long-term US treasuries down 2.5%. Real yields and inflation expectations rose on the week.
You are receiving this email because you signed up to receive our weekly research at www.nydig.com
This communication has been prepared solely for informational purposes and does not represent investment advice or provide an opinion regarding the fairness of any transaction to any and all parties nor does it constitute an offer, solicitation or a recommendation to buy or sell any particular security or instrument or to adopt any investment strategy. Charts and graphs provided herein are for illustrative purposes only. This communication does not represent valuation judgments with respect to any financial instrument, issuer, security or sector that may be described or referenced herein and does not represent a formal or official view of New York Digital Investment Group or its affiliates (collectively NYDIG).
It should not be assumed that NYDIG will make investment recommendations in the future that are consistent with the views expressed herein, or use any or all of the techniques or methods of analysis described herein. NYDIG may have positions (long or short) or engage in securities transactions that are not consistent with the information and views expressed in this communication.
The information provided herein is valid only for the purpose stated herein and as of the date hereof (or such other date as may be indicated herein) and no undertaking has been made to update the information, which may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. The information in this communication may contain forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets or expectations. NYDIG neither assumes any duty to nor undertakes to update any forward-looking statements. There is no assurance that any forward-looking events or targets will be achieved, and actual outcomes may be significantly different from those shown herein. The information in this communication, including statements concerning financial market trends, is based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons.
Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this communication are based, are from sources believed to be reliable. However, NYDIG makes no representation as to the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such information and has accepted the information without further verification. No warranty is given as to the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such information. No responsibility is taken for changes in market conditions or laws or regulations and no obligation is assumed to revise this communication to reflect changes, events or conditions that occur subsequent to the date hereof.
Nothing contained herein constitutes investment, legal, tax or other advice nor is it to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Legal advice can only be provided by legal counsel. NYDIG shall have no liability to any third party in respect of this communication or any actions taken or decisions made as a consequence of the information set forth herein. By accepting this communication, the recipient acknowledges its understanding and acceptance of the foregoing terms.
