Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis reveals diverse exposures to systematic and idiosyncratic risk across various crypto assets, highlighting their implications for risk management.
This paper analyzes realized return behavior across a broad set of crypto assets by estimating heterogeneous exposures to idiosyncratic and systematic risk. A key challenge arises from the latent nature of broader economy-wide risk sources: macro-financial proxies are unavailable at high-frequencies, while the abundance of low-frequency candidates offers limited guidance on empirical relevance. To address this, we develop a two-stage ``divide-and-conquer'' approach. The first stage estimates exposures to high-frequency idiosyncratic and market risk only, using asset-level IV regressions. The second stage identifies latent economy-wide factors by extracting the leading principal component from the model residuals and mapping it to lower-frequency macro-financial uncertainty and sentiment-based indicators via high-dimensional variable selection. Structured patterns of heterogeneity in exposures are uncovered using Mean Group estimators across asset categories. The method is applied to a broad sample of crypto assets, covering more than 80% of total market capitalization. We document short-term mean reversion and significant average exposures to idiosyncratic volatility and illiquidity. Green and DeFi assets are, on average, more exposed to market-level and economy-wide risk than their non-Green and non-DeFi counterparts. By contrast, stablecoins are less exposed to idiosyncratic, market-level, and economy-wide risk factors relative to non-stablecoins. At a conceptual level, our study develops a coherent framework for isolating distinct layers of risk in crypto markets. Empirically, it sheds light on how return sensitivities vary across digital asset categories -- insights that are important for both portfolio design and regulatory oversight.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aslanidis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: