Tag Archives: hedge

Bitcoin as a Macro Hedge in a Fracturing Fiat World

Bitcoin as a Macro Hedge in a Fracturing Fiat World

In a world where fiat currencies face unprecedented erosion from inflation, geopolitical brinkmanship, and central bank overreach, Bitcoin has emerged as a compelling—if imperfect—tool for strategic asset allocation. The cryptocurrency’s role as a macro hedge has evolved dramatically since 2020, reflecting both its growing institutional legitimacy and the persistent challenges of volatility and regulatory uncertainty.

Bitcoin’s Dual Identity: Risky Asset or Inflation Hedge?

Bitcoin’s performance during periods of monetary instability reveals a duality. In 2020–2021, its price surged alongside inflation expectations, peaking at $109,300 amid pandemic-era stimulus measures [1]. This suggested a potential role as an inflation hedge. However, the narrative shifted in 2022, when rising interest rates triggered a 60% correction in Bitcoin’s price, mirroring the behavior of equities and tech stocks [1]. By 2023–2025, Bitcoin’s correlation with stock indices like the S&P 500 strengthened, while its link to inflation indicators weakened [1]. Data from Glassnode confirmed that Bitcoin’s correlation with the U.S. CPI index in 2024–2025 averaged just 0.15, underscoring its identity as a risk-on asset rather than a traditional safe haven [1].

Ask Aime: Is Bitcoin a reliable hedge against inflation or a risky asset?

Yet, Bitcoin’s utility as a hedge persists in localized contexts. In hyperinflationary economies like Argentina and Turkey, it has served as a de facto store of value, preserving purchasing power when local currencies collapsed [1]. This duality—global risk asset and local inflation hedge—reflects Bitcoin’s unique position in a fragmented financial landscape.

Strategic Allocation in a Fracturing Fiat World

The 2025 macroeconomic environment has accelerated Bitcoin’s integration into institutional portfolios. Over 1,000 corporations and investment firms now hold Bitcoin as part of their treasuries, including the U.S. government’s newly established Strategic Bitcoin Reserve [1]. This shift is driven by Bitcoin’s fixed supply of 21 million coins, which contrasts sharply with the expanding money supply of fiat currencies and the low yields of U.S. Treasuries [1].

Bitcoin’s programmable scarcity and global liquidity make it a compelling complement to traditional assets. While U.S. Treasuries offer stability, their appeal has waned as the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expanded to $9 trillion, eroding purchasing power [1]. Meanwhile, gold—long the benchmark for safe-haven assets—faces competition from Bitcoin’s digital accessibility and regulatory progress. The approval of U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2024, for instance, injected $132 billion in inflows, signaling growing institutional confidence [6].

Geopolitical Catalysts and Macroeconomic Tailwinds

Bitcoin’s performance in Q3 2025 was shaped by a volatile geopolitical backdrop. A 30% price slump in early April followed escalating tariff tensions and Middle East conflicts, but the asset rebounded sharply in May as negotiations eased and the Fed signaled rate cuts [3]. This resilience highlights Bitcoin’s sensitivity to risk-on/risk-off sentiment, a trait shared with equities but absent in traditional inflation hedges like gold [5].

Central bank liquidity also played a critical role. Historical patterns show Bitcoin typically follows global liquidity trends with a two-month lag [3]. In Q3 2025, liquidity stabilized below $30 trillion, supporting Bitcoin’s consolidation between $100,000 and $120,000 [3]. Meanwhile, institutional adoption—driven by 401(k) integration and corporate treasury strategies—provided structural support, with analysts projecting a $190,000 price target by year-end [4].

Bitcoin vs. Gold: A New Era of Diversification

While gold remains a cornerstone of central bank reserves—valued at $2.2 trillion in Q1 2024—Bitcoin’s rise as a strategic asset reflects changing investor priorities [6]. Both assets outperformed traditional investments in 2025, with Bitcoin peaking at $122,000 and gold hitting $3,433 per ounce [2]. However, Bitcoin’s volatility (40% annualized) still lags behind gold’s historical stability, though it has narrowed in recent months [3].

Bitcoin’s advantages lie in its censorship resistance and programmability. During crises like the Russia-Ukraine war, it enabled sanctions evasion and cross-border aid, while gold’s physical nature limited its utility [4]. Conversely, gold’s millennia-old track record as a store of value ensures its place in conservative portfolios, particularly for institutions like BlackRock and Ray Dalio’s hedge funds [3].

Risks and the Road Ahead

Bitcoin’s macro-hedging potential is not without caveats. Regulatory headwinds, such as the SEC’s crackdown on anonymous transactions, and the rise of CBDCs, could dampen its appeal [1]. Additionally, its performance during the 2022 liquidity crisis—when it fell in tandem with equities—challenges its status as a true safe haven [1].

However, the 2025 macroeconomic environment has created a unique tailwind. With the Fed expected to cut rates from 5.25% to 3.25% by early 2026, non-yielding assets like Bitcoin and gold have gained traction [3]. The U.S. dollar’s 11% decline over six months and geopolitical tensions—from U.S.-China trade talks to the Israel–Palestine conflict—have further driven demand for alternative reserves [2].

Conclusion: A Portfolio for the 21st Century

Bitcoin’s role in strategic asset allocation is best understood as part of a diversified framework. While it cannot replace gold’s stability or Treasuries’ liquidity, its fixed supply and global accessibility make it a powerful hedge against fiat devaluation and geopolitical risk. Institutional adoption, regulatory clarity, and macroeconomic tailwinds suggest Bitcoin will remain a critical component of forward-thinking portfolios in a fracturing fiat world.

As the lines between digital and traditional assets blur, investors must balance Bitcoin’s volatility with its potential to outperform in a world of monetary uncertainty. The 2025 experience underscores one truth: in an era of perpetual crisis, the only constant is the need for reinvention.

Source:
[1] Is crypto still a hedge against inflation? A data-based look [https://medium.com/@info_32840/is-crypto-still-a-hedge-against-inflation-a-data-based-look-404ffc6f9832]
[2] Bitcoin as a Strategic Reserve Asset: The Economic Rationale [https://coinshares.com/us/insights/research-data/bitcoin-as-a-strategic-reserve-asset-the-economic-rationale/]
[3] Q3 2025 Cross-Asset Outlook: Decoding the Macro Shift Ahead [https://permutable.ai/q3-2025-cross-asset-outlook/]
[4] 25Q3 Bitcoin Valuation Report by Tiger Research [https://www.coingecko.com/learn/25q3-bitcoin-valuation-report-tiger-research]
[5] Bitcoin: An inflation hedge but not a safe haven – PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8995501/]
[6] The crypto catalyst: How inflation, rates, and risk sentiment … [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crypto-catalyst-how-inflation-rates-risk-sentiment-shape-anndy-lian-fbr4c]

 

 

Source: https://www.ainvest.com/news/bitcoin-macro-hedge-fracturing-fiat-world-2509/

 

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

www.anndy.com
j j j

The new gold standard? Bitcoin’s macro hedge role amid US debt and trade turmoil

The new gold standard? Bitcoin’s macro hedge role amid US debt and trade turmoil

The interplay of global macroeconomic dynamics and cryptocurrency market trends presents a complex tapestry of investor sentiment, speculative positioning, and structural shifts in asset valuation frameworks.

At the forefront of this landscape lies Bitcoin (BTC), whose recent price action and derivatives market metrics have sparked intense scrutiny. Simultaneously, Ethereum’s (ETH) unique capacity to generate organic yield through protocol-level mechanisms offers a stark contrast to Bitcoin’s store-of-value narrative.

To dissect these phenomena, we must contextualise Bitcoin’s soaring open interest within broader market psychology while contrasting Ethereum’s yield-generating potential against traditional financial paradigms.

Bitcoin’s derivatives surge: Implications for price dynamics

Bitcoin’s derivatives market has reached unprecedented levels of activity, with total open interest across exchanges hitting US$73.59 billion, a figure that underscores the growing institutionalisation of crypto markets. This metric reflects the total notional value of outstanding futures and options contracts, serving as a barometer for speculative fervour and hedging activity.

The dominance of regulated venues like CME (US$16.71 billion) and Binance (US$12.08 billion) highlights divergent participant profiles: CME’s institutional-heavy structure versus Binance’s retail-driven ecosystem. Such bifurcation amplifies market complexity as macro-hedge funds and algorithmic traders interact with retail sentiment, often leading to asymmetrical price discovery mechanisms.

Historically, surges in open interest have preceded heightened volatility. For instance, Bitcoin’s 2021 bull run saw open interest peak at US$25 billion before a 35 per cent correction, illustrating the liquidation risks inherent in leveraged positions. The current US$73.59 billion figure, however, operates within a transformed regulatory and infrastructural environment.

Institutional-grade custody solutions and improved risk management tools have enhanced market resilience, potentially mitigating cascading liquidations even during sharp corrections. Yet, the concentration of US$28.79 billion in the top two exchanges raises concerns about systemic interconnectivity, particularly given Binance’s recent regulatory challenges and CME’s role as a clearinghouse for macro funds.

The psychological significance of Bitcoin’s US$100,000–US$110,000 range cannot be overstated. Having breached this threshold in May 2025, BTC’s subsequent consolidation reflects a classic accumulation phase, wherein long-term holders absorb volatility while short-term speculators test support levels.

On-chain data revealing 19,400 BTC inflows to institutional wallets corroborates this thesis, suggesting strategic positioning ahead of anticipated catalysts, possibly tied to the US election cycle or ETF approval timelines. Notably, the 0.9 outflow/inflow ratio signals net accumulation, a bullish indicator historically associated with multi-month rallies.

However, the persistent short-side pressure on Binance derivatives, despite BTC’s resilience, introduces a tug-of-war dynamic where capitulation events could trigger explosive moves in either direction.

From a technical perspective, the US$100,000–US$110,000 range may serve as a springboard for a parabolic rally, as suggested by cyclical patterns observed in prior halving cycles. The nine per cent correction to US$98,300 in June 2025 barely grazed the 200-day moving average, preserving the uptrend’s integrity.

Should volume profiles expand alongside institutional inflows, a breakout above US$111,800 could activate algorithmic buy orders, propelling BTC toward US$120,000 by year-end. Conversely, a decisive close below US$95,000 would invalidate this thesis, potentially triggering a retest of US$85,000 support—a scenario deemed low probability by analysts tracking on-chain fundamentals.

Ethereum’s yield paradigm: A structural shift in crypto valuation

While Bitcoin dominates headlines as a macro hedge and digital gold, Ethereum’s evolution into a yield-generating infrastructure asset represents a seismic shift in crypto-economics.

Unlike Bitcoin’s fixed-supply, proof-of-work model, which relies solely on a monetary premium for returns, Ethereum’s post-Merge architecture enables stakers to earn ~three per cent annualised yields through network validation. This organic cash flow mechanism aligns Ethereum with traditional income-producing assets, bridging the gap between decentralised protocols and institutional portfolios.

Staking’s appeal lies in its dual function as both a security mechanism and a revenue stream. By locking ETH to validate transactions, participants secure the network while earning issuance rewards and transaction fees.

Restaking protocols like EigenLayer further amplify yields by allowing staked ETH to secure third-party applications, creating a layered economy of risk and return. This operational model contrasts sharply with Bitcoin’s reliance on financial engineering, such as ETFs or lending products, to generate yield, positioning Ethereum as a hybrid between a utility network and a capital asset.

The implications for institutional adoption are profound. Traditional investors, accustomed to dividend-paying equities or coupon-bearing bonds, often struggle to reconcile Bitcoin’s non-yielding nature with portfolio allocation models. Ethereum’s three per cent base yield, however, provides a familiar entry point, particularly for sovereign wealth funds and pension schemes seeking inflation-hedged returns.

BlackRock’s recent filings for an Ethereum ETF underscore this trajectory, signaling a potential influx of US$50 billion or more in institutional capital should regulatory hurdles ease.Moreover, Ethereum’s yield ecosystem extends beyond passive income. Decentralised finance (DeFi) protocols enable dynamic strategies—such as liquidity provision or leveraged staking—that can boost returns to 8–12 per cent, albeit with elevated risk.

This programmable yield, combined with Layer 2 scaling solutions reducing transaction costs, creates a virtuous cycle of capital inflows and network utility. In contrast, Bitcoin’s yield opportunities remain tethered to centralised intermediaries (e.g., BlockFi’s interest accounts), exposing holders to counterparty risks that Ethereum’s trustless staking avoids.

Intermarket dynamics: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and macro resilience

The divergence between Bitcoin and Ethereum narratives plays out against a backdrop of global uncertainty. With US Treasury yields climbing toward five per cent and trade wars intensifying, risk assets face headwinds that disproportionately impact high-duration investments.

Bitcoin’s correlation with Nasdaq equities, evident in its muted response to tariff-driven volatility, suggests lingering sensitivity to Fed policy. Ethereum’s staking yield, however, may decouple it from traditional tech valuations, as its cash flows provide downside protection during liquidity crunches.

Gold’s retreat to US$3,300/oz amid dollar strength further highlights Bitcoin’s evolving role as a non-sovereign reserve asset. While gold remains a crisis hedge, its lack of yield and logistical constraints in storage and transmission render it inferior to programmable digital alternatives.

Ethereum’s ability to offer both appreciation potential and income generation could accelerate this substitution effect, particularly in emerging markets grappling with currency debasement and capital controls.

Energy markets also influence crypto dynamics. Brent crude’s rebound to US$70/bbl, despite OPEC+ supply increases, underscores the inflationary pressures that have historically buoyed BTC. Ethereum benefits indirectly, as stable energy prices reduce miner capitulation risks—a concern during Bitcoin’s 2022 bear market.

Furthermore, Ethereum’s energy-efficient proof-of-stake model aligns with ESG mandates, granting it a regulatory advantage in jurisdictions that prioritise sustainability.

Strategic outlook: Navigating the dual narrative

For portfolio managers, the Bitcoin-Ethereum dichotomy demands nuanced allocation strategies. Bitcoin’s role as a macro hedge against fiscal profligacy and currency debasement remains intact, particularly with US gross federal debt exceeding 130 per cent of GDP. Institutions seeking pure exposure to global liquidity expansion should prioritise BTC, leveraging derivatives to hedge against short-term volatility while accumulating during dips in the inflow ratio.

Ethereum, meanwhile, appeals to investors seeking alpha through participation in the protocol. The three per cent staking yield acts as a floor for total returns, with DeFi and NFT ecosystems offering asymmetric upside. A 60/40 BTC-ETH portfolio, rebalanced quarterly, could optimise risk-adjusted returns while capturing both monetary and utility premiums. Retail traders, conversely, may exploit Ethereum’s yield volatility through options straddles or basis trades, capitalising on protocol upgrade cycles.

Regulatory developments will loom large in Q3 and Q4 2025. The SEC’s impending rulings on spot Ethereum ETFs, coupled with MiCA compliance deadlines in Europe, could catalyse a US$200 billion inflow into compliant crypto products. Bitcoin’s derivatives market, now a US$73.59 billion ecosystem, may see regulatory convergence as the CFTC intensifies oversight, a double-edged sword that enhances legitimacy while squeezing unregistered exchanges.

In conclusion, the confluence of derivatives-driven speculation in Bitcoin and Ethereum’s yield revolution encapsulates crypto’s transition from fringe assets to mainstream infrastructure. While Bitcoin’s path hinges on macro resilience and institutional flows, Ethereum’s ascent depends on its ability to sustain yield premiums amid rising competition from layer-2 ecosystems.

Both assets, however, share a common destiny: redefining the storage and transfer of value in an era of unprecedented monetary experimentation. Investors who grasp this duality stand to navigate the volatility ahead with clarity, positioning themselves at the intersection of innovation and tradition.

 

Source: https://e27.co/the-new-gold-standard-bitcoins-macro-hedge-role-amid-us-debt-and-trade-turmoil-20250709/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

www.anndy.com
j j j

SEC removes digital assets from hedge fund rule: What does it mean for the future of digital asset regulation

SEC removes digital assets from hedge fund rule: What does it mean for the future of digital asset regulation

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which regulates the securities industry, has recently decided about digital assets. Digital assets are virtual or digital currencies that can be traded or exchanged. The SEC previously defined digital assets as securities in its hedge fund rule, subjecting them to additional regulations.

Hedge fund rule

The hedge fund rule, officially known as Rule 206(4)-8 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, is a rule created by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to prevent investment advisers from making false or misleading statements to investors in pooled investment vehicles such as hedge funds.

The rule imposes additional reporting and disclosure requirements on advisers to hedge funds and other private funds and requires them to implement specific compliance programs and risk management measures. The rule is designed to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the financial markets by ensuring that investment advisers act in their client’s best interests and provide accurate and complete information about their investment strategies and risks.

In the context of digital assets, the SEC included a definition of “digital assets” as securities in its hedge fund rule, subjecting them to additional regulations. However, the SEC recently removed this definition, indicating that it is still evaluating the term and has not yet decided whether digital assets should be classified as securities.

New asset class for “digital assets”?

Many people have been surprised by this move and have questioned the SEC’s approach to regulating digital assets. It’s worth noting that SEC Chair Gary Gensler gave a speech before the House Financial Services Committee on April 18, 2023, regarding the agency’s stance on digital assets. The hearing was not dedicated exclusively to the SEC’s crypto strategies, but the regulatory agency’s chairman faced criticism over perceived regulatory overreach and lack of clear crypto classification. During the hearing, Gensler refused to comment on whether Ether (ETH) was a security or a commodity, saying it depends on the facts and the law, despite being told he knows. It is worth noting that the U.S. House Financial Services Committee and House Agriculture Committee are set to put together legislation to oversee the crypto sector. The bill will be introduced within the next two months.

Having said so, I do see this in a more positive light. This suggests that the SEC is working on a regulatory framework for digital assets, and this decision may be part of a larger strategy. The SEC may have removed the definition of “digital assets” from the hedge fund rule to allow for further consideration and evaluation of the appropriate regulatory approach for this new asset class. The SEC could be taking a cautious approach to ensure that any regulatory framework it develops is appropriate for digital assets’ unique characteristics and addresses potential risks without hindering innovation.

Regulating digital assets is complex and contentious

Experts have commented on the SEC’s decision to remove its previous definition of digital assets as securities, which would have subjected them to additional regulations. Coinbase, a major player in the crypto industry, has publicly opposed the SEC’s stance on regulating digital assets. Some experts believe that the digital assets sector needs to focus more on risk management and operational due diligence, coupled with thoughtful regulation, to repair its reputation.

It’s essential to recognize that the SEC has had a changing stance on digital assets, and this recent decision isn’t the first time they’ve taken a position on their classification. Previously, the SEC confirmed that a 401(k) plan could be considered a single investor under section 3 (c) (1) and a qualified purchaser under section 3 (c) (7) if plan participants have investment discretion to allocate their accounts.

The question of how to regulate digital assets is complex and contentious. In addition to the points made, some argue that digital assets fundamentally differ from traditional securities and should be treated as a separate asset class. Because they operate on a decentralized network, digital assets aren’t subject to the same regulations and oversight as traditional securities. This lack of regulation has led to concerns about market manipulation, fraud, and other illicit activities.

Moreover, digital assets aren’t backed by physical assets or government guarantees, which makes them inherently risky. However, they also have the potential for high returns, which can entice investors who are willing to take on more risk in their investments. Due to these unique characteristics, some experts suggest that digital assets require a different approach to risk management, valuation, and investment strategies than traditional securities.

The evolving nature of the digital asset market may require clearer regulatory frameworks and standards as it matures. However, there is uncertainty surrounding how these assets will be classified and regulated and how this will affect the overall market. Digital assets have unique characteristics that differentiate them from traditional assets, including decentralization and the use of blockchain technology. This technology enables borderless transactions, smart contracts, and decentralized applications that offer new investment opportunities for retail and institutional investors.

Ending remarks

The growth of the digital asset market has attracted significant attention from regulators and investors, with some arguing that digital assets should be treated as securities to protect investors from fraud. The SEC’s decision to remove the definition of digital assets as securities from its hedge fund rule have fueled ongoing debate about the appropriate regulatory framework for this asset class. As the use of digital assets continues to expand, the SEC will likely continue to develop its regulatory approach.

In conclusion, the SEC’s recent decision is a significant development in regulating digital assets and raises questions about how these assets will be classified and regulated. As the digital asset market matures, there may be a need for clearer regulatory frameworks and standards to protect investors and prevent fraud while allowing for innovation and growth.

 

Source: https://www.financialexpress.com/business/blockchain-sec-removes-digital-assets-from-hedge-fund-rule-what-does-it-mean-for-the-future-of-digital-asset-regulation-3080830/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

www.anndy.com
j j j