Quantifying the Benefits of Regulatory Clarity

Quantifying the Benefits of Regulatory Clarity

by Greg Cipolaro, Global Head of Research and Ethan Kochav, Research Analyst

Executive Summary

Regulatory clarity is often cited as a hurdle for broad institutional adoption of the cryptocurrency asset class. After all, investors are not accustomed to questioning whether their investment might be deemed a regulated security or how that might change in the future. While it is our belief that Bitcoin’s regulatory distinction is well understood in the US, the same cannot be said for the thousands of other digital assets or the myriad of services provided across the landscape. We have long held the opinion that increased regulatory clarity, provided it does not prove to be an existential threat, would be supportive for adoption and therefore prices. The theory is that once investors know the rules of the road, they can safely adhere to those guidelines, whatever they may be. We look at the concept that increasing regulatory clarity is supportive of price, and finds that across geographies this relationship holds true. In the case of China, where regulation has been existential in nature, as the country banned both mining and trading of digital assets, we find that regulation has had a deleterious impact on prices. Given that it is increasingly clear that most countries around the world, including the US, appear to be taking an approach that we categorize as “supportive but with guardrails,” this analysis furthers our belief that increasing regulatory clarity will be beneficial to price and adoption. And given that there is a lot of regulatory clarity left on the table, this could provide a tailwind to bitcoin prices going forward.

Study Design

We look at historical events that encompass digital asset regulation across a variety of countries. These events cover issues such as tax, accounting, payment, mining, the legality of exchanges and other service providers, or even the legality of digital assets themselves. We track the subsequent price returns of bitcoin in the following day, week, month, six months, and year. These returns are evaluated both in absolute terms and versus the long-term average returns of bitcoin. We aggregate and average returns across four regions: the Americas, China, Asia Ex. China, and Europe. While we show returns across a series of windows, we believe the longer-term windows contain more information. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, while we have plotted the exact timing of events, it is not always clear when information reaches or is processed by markets. Second, the immediate price reaction can sometimes mask the longer-term trends in price that follow as markets digest the news. Thus, looking at 1-day returns (or even 1-week) can be misleading as to the true price impact. In addition to focusing on longer windows, we also concentrate on returns relative to long-term averages rather than absolute returns. A 1-year bitcoin return of, say, 50% may look high in most contexts, but it is low compared to the historical average annual return.

Results Show Investors Prefer Regulatory Clarity

The results of the study are clear. Both on an absolute basis as well as relative basis, increasing regulatory clarity is advantageous for the price of bitcoin. The benefit of regulatory clarity is more evident as we move further from the event. Apart from in China, returns following events have positive returns against bitcoin averages in the six-month and one-year windows, while returns over shorter windows are more mixed. The implication is that regulatory clarity, while not always perfect, is appreciated by investors. It is worth noting that it is impossible to directly observe the effect of regulation as there are myriad factors impacting price at any given time. However, we believe that with the large number of events we have captured, the effects of this noise are somewhat cancelled out. 

No alt text provided for this image
No alt text provided for this image

As mentioned above, the big exception has been China, which has been outright hostile to the digital asset ecosystem. Starting in 2013 up through the ban of trading and mining in 2021, each successive regulation had further constricted cryptocurrencies until all but peer-to-peer activity — something that would be exceedingly difficult to outlaw — was snuffed out. China’s actions may have technically brought regulatory clarity, but its regulatory environment is a worst-case scenario. In China’s case, our data shows that their actions have not been supportive of prices, as one might guess. 

Looking Ahead 

The good news is that very few countries around the world have expressed such outright hostility towards digital assets as China. Recent examples of regulatory pushes, like the White House’s Executive Order on Ensuring the Responsible Development of Digital Assets and the proposed Responsible Financial Innovation Act by Senators Lummis and Gillibrand strike a much more balanced tone. But while not every regulatory development will be as positive, we think that as long as investors know the rules of the road, even if they are far from ideal, that should be supportive of price and adoption going forward.

This report 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 report 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 in managing client accounts. NYDIG may have positions (long or short) or engage in securities transactions that are not consistent with the information and views expressed in this report.

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 report, 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 report 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 report 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 report or any actions taken or decisions made as a consequence of the information set forth herein. By accepting this report, the recipient acknowledges its understanding and acceptance of the foregoing terms.




To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics