Alpha Digest (free)
CAIA Association
Alpha Search
A Talk on the What and Whys of Cryptocurrencies
Newly Added, Currencies, Emerging Alternative Investments, The Global Economy & Currencies, Digital currencies, Finance & Economics, Other Topics in A.I. 20 Jun 2018
The Battle of the Quants came to New York City on Wednesday, June 20, and the CAIA Association was one of its media sponsors.
Much of the event involved cryptocurrencies, including an exchange between John D'Agostino (the global head of investor engagement at DMS Governance) and Nouriel Roubini, Chairman of Roubini Macro Associates.
Over the weekend, in advance of the 'battle,' our Christopher Faille discussed cryptos with Mr. D'Agostino, who had much of compelling interest to say.
AAA: Bitcoins have fallen in value considerably in recent weeks and months. Just in the last two months (mid-April to mid-June) they have fallen $2,000, to around $6,500 now, and that was only part of a longer decline from a peak of $20,000 late last year. So, first, what might be the cause of this trend and, second, does this support the view of the skeptics who regard it as a bubble?
JD: Predicting, or assigning causality to short-, medium-, or even long-term price movements on any illiquid asset, outside of a clear idiosyncratic event, is a very silly thing. Technical analysis is tough enough even when there is a robust data set. With bitcoin, despite the fact that the pubic blockchain shows most transaction data, there is not yet a robust data set, and prediction, or assigning causality to price movement, is at best guesswork.
An optimistic view is that the market was simply overbought, and is now trying to find a stabilization price. A more cynical view is that the reason it was overbought was price manipulation. While recent academic evidence has emerged indicating manipulation may have played a major role in the price run-up of BTC (and this certainly deserves investigation), I'd be cautious of making the claim prematurely. There is a very very thin line between legitimate buying activity and manipulation in illiquid markets, and that line is 'intent'.
Regardless of reason, does the price decline and significant volatility reinforce the skeptics? Obviously, yes. Whether you believe that the ultimate use-case for bitcoin is a stable store of value, or that it is a new currency, extreme volatility weakens its utility in either case.
However, I think if you believe (like I do) that a reasonable potential use case for BTC (or an alternative digital asset with similar characteristics) is a store of value whose primary function is not to protect value from market volatility but to protect from government seizure, then the position that volatility lessens its effectiveness is not as compelling. We are somewhat spoiled in the West. Despite how you feel about the government, it's unusual for government to arbitrarily seize assets. In many parts of the world, that is a real risk. In those circumstances, even if the asset loses half its value while you are making your escape, you have saved that half where otherwise you would have lost everything.
So if you're using bitcoin to protect some of your wealth from government seizure, a store of value that is: (a) easy to transport; (b) somewhat anonymous; (c) irrevocable; and (d) largely outside the global banking system and is truly unique and therefore has some value. Whether that value is $1 or $1,000,000 I can't say. It depends on the amount of demand for this protection and the interest in others to speculate on the future demand for that protection. Also, there may be a use-case that sees bitcoin as a temporary stopgap currency in failed nation-states where the official currency has become worthless and momentary infrastructure is broken, then a digital asset could potentially serve as currency until a new government can be installed and a fiat currency be adopted. In those conditions, stability is more important, but again, one has to consider the alternative which is using a hyper-inflating or black-market currency with no local infrastructure.
AAA: Pop culture has certainly latched on to cryptos. I saw an episode of Ellen recently in which a celebrity guest made an on-air donation to a charity in her name, and used Ripple to make the donation. Is this sort of big cultural footprint good news or bad news? I remember in the 1990s when pop culture was full of dotcom references, just before the crash of all things dotcom.
JD: I don't think it's a good sign. There's a reason we have securities laws, a reason we have the concepts of suitability and fiduciary responsibility – namely because for certain disciplines like finance and medicine, the impact on people's lives is so profound and the knowledge gap is so wide that we have decided as a society to create extra protections to avoid predatory behavior. If you allow celebrity to supplant expertise, it becomes easy for the unscrupulous to persuade the uninformed to do something against their best interests. That is what a high pop culture profile most likely leads to.
What's best for people is usually very boring. We know that most people would be fit by eating a diet of vegetables/lean protein and exercising an hour a day. We know this. Yet a massive industry exists to serve a populace that knows the answer but doesn't want to follow it because it's boring. We know that the best use of most people's savings is to invest the majority into fixed income and passively managed equities (and of course have some fun and take some risk with a reasonable amount). But that's boring. Cryptocurrencies are exciting, and excitement in investment should be looked at skeptically. If you want excitement, the pass line in Craps generally pays the House a mere 1.41% edge. It's a lot more fun and social than buying a toke and you have a much higher chance of making money and enjoying yourself Investing shouldn't be a leisure activity.
AAA: One impulse for the growth of cryptocurrencies was the libertarian politics of it all. Libertarians say to each other, "We don't trust the government, so let's not use government money, money pushed on us by politicians and central bankers. Let's create our own money." How much of it does that sentiment explain?
JD: That depends on what metric you are looking at, number of transactions or percentage of assets? The larger digital assets are highly concentrated. A lot of the market cap is in the hands of a relatively few large players, the 'whales' who were there in the very beginning. The "OGs" of digital assets. How many of these whales believe in the politics of it, believe that cryptos will help displace the current system of government, banking, and corporate law? I won't guess a percentage but it is higher than one might expect. At the time they bought it, it was difficult to predict the speculative frenzy we have today, so a primary reason for believe in it was buying into the core crypto-anarchist philosophy.
Then you have the next weave of market participant. More recently, many people who don't necessarily buy into the philosophy entered the market, and these pure speculators account for a large share of the transactions. Not so large a share of the assets involved, though, since they are usually coming in (relatively) small.
AAA: The agenda of the upcoming Battle of the Quants tells me there will be a presentation by Ryan Robinson on cryptocurrencies and quantum computing. I know nothing about quantum computing and so I have no idea how these two circles intersect. Can you give me a head's up?
JD: I'm not an expert on quantum computing, but I know enough technologists to have an opinion. The challenge QC poses to digital assets seems pretty straightforward. The core technical foundation digital assets were built on (ie the tech that makes them secure) was developed in a computing paradigm that may be turned on its head by QC. The absolute faith that most technologists have in digital asset security (the impossibility of altering the block, the computational cost of mining, etc.) is ALL based on the current paradigm of what computers can reasonably do now, and in the future, based on everything we know about physics and computational evolution. Quantum computing throws all that out the window. So anything built on the old model of computing is thrown into doubt.
It's as if a security system was developed that relied on all of us keeping a simple number in our minds. Never writing it down or sharing it with anyone. Then we wake up one morning to find that we, or some of us, had become telepaths. We could read minds. The foundations of our security would be invalidated. Based on what much smarter people than me have explained, QC could do something like that to the current crop of digital assets.
AAA: Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission has decided that neither bitcoin nor ether is a 'security.' That's good news if you own either. But are the regulators likely to scrutinize other cryptos and find that some of them ARE securities?
JD: No one who has been closely following the SEC's comments should have been surprised by this. Declaring Ether a security would destroy the ecosystem. The SEC has been extremely thoughtful in their regulatory approach toward digital assets. There was never an indication they were looking to destroy the ecosystem, in fact I think it's the opposite. However, they also don't want to, and haven't, said anything that would prevent them from aggressively going after ICOs, finding many of them to be scams and pretty much all of them to be securities, and this within the scope of the regulatory system.
I've been advising people for some time that when the SEC moved, this is the direction in which it would move.
Tags: alternative investmentsbitcoincryptocurrenciesBattle of the Quants
← Eurekahedge: 2018 YTD Growth Positive but Unimpressive Three Drivers of Hedge Fund Consolidation →
Archives Select Month January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 February 2014 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 January 2004 December 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 October 2002 September 2002 July 2002 May 2002 January 2002 November 2001 October 2001 July 2001 May 2001 February 2001 July 2000 May 2000 January 2000 April 1999 February 1999 December 1997
RSS Subscribe 7304 Followers 0 Fans Connect LinkedIn
Forgot ID or password?
Having trouble logging in? Get in touch.
Newly Added (850)
What about beta? (60)
The A.I. Industry (718)
Industry Size & Managers (73)
Alpha-centric Companies (5)
Asset Managers (27)
Regulatory Environment (314)
Hedge Fund Regulation (127)
Legislation/Court rulings (50)
UCITs (12)
Alternative Investments in Context (90)
Alternative data (3)
Media Coverage of Hedge Funds (50)
Hedge Funds (1,081)
Equity Hedge Funds (401)
Hedge Fund Strategies (192)
Alpha Strategies (230)
Event-Driven Hedge Funds (77)
Funds of Hedge Funds (3)
Macro and Managed Futures Funds (53)
Relative Value Hedge Funds (26)
Structure of the Hedge Funds Industry (715)
Hedge Fund Industry Trends (574)
Seeding/early-stage (7)
Fees (125)
Commodities (190)
Investing in Commodities (136)
Commodity Forward Pricing (2)
Commodities: Examples (67)
Hard metals (17)
Private Investments (242)
Debt Types of Private Equity (45)
Equity Types of Private Equity (201)
Private Equity (182)
Angel investing (6)
Other Issues in Private Investments (69)
Real Assets (125)
Liquid and Fixed Income Real Estate (13)
Natural Resources and Land (26)
Farmland (10)
Operationally Intensive Real Assets (59)
Real Estate Equity Investments (56)
Structured Products (70)
CDO Structuring and Credit RIsk (1)
Credit Derivatives (9)
Equity-linked Structured Products (59)
Derivatives (58)
Structured Credit Products (7)
Risk Management & Operations (269)
Due Diligence Process (17)
Service Providers (7)
Partner accounting (5)
Risk Metrics and Measurement (26)
Risk Management Strategies & Processes (188)
Hedge Fund Operations and Risk Management (78)
Allocating to A.I. (1,005)
Alpha & Beta (398)
Portable Alpha & Alpha/Beta Separation (153)
Alternative Beta & Hedge Fund Replication (115)
130/30 (83)
ETFs (27)
Benchmarking & Performance Attribution (189)
Performance, Analytics & Metrics (178)
Asset Allocation Models (76)
Liability Driven Investing (17)
Asset allocation (54)
Institutional Asset Management (424)
Institutional Investing (380)
High-net-worth investors (31)
Endowments & Foundations (46)
Family Offices (19)
Finance & Economics (600)
Financial Economics Theory (254)
CAPM / Alpha Theory (210)
Behavioral finance (23)
The Global Economy & Currencies (214)
Currencies (103)
Frontier markets (16)
Macroeconomics (39)
Algorithmic and high-frequency trading (86)
Insolvency (48)
Other Topics in A.I. (462)
Qualified Opportunity Zones (2)
Liquid Alternative Investiments (116)
Retail Investing (75)
Alternative Mutual Funds (13)
Liquid Alts (26)
Smart Beta (22)
Emerging Alternative Investments (72)
Microfinance (4)
Digital currencies (46)
Personalities in AI (176)
Who's Who (41)
Hall of Fame (30)
Academic Foundations (9)
Hedge Fund Researchers (8)
Alpha Hunters (108)
Alpha Seekers (32)
Sales & Marketing in the AI Industry (35)
Investor Relations (28)
SRI and Clean Energy (76)
Social investing (24)
Socially responsible investing (48)
Copyright © 2018 Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst (CAIA) Association. All Rights Reserved.