Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations

This paper investigates how the introduction of regulations for local Bitcoin markets will shape prices
and trading activities in six major trading markets that comprise 99% of global trading volume. It finds that
local government regulations only have a short-lived impact on the Bitcoin price but discourage longer-term
trading activities in local markets. The paper also finds that the repressive effect of domestic regulations
on trading activities can be mitigated by domestic financial market openness. It documents consistent
evidence that Bitcoin markets are globally integrated but international cooperation is essential to uphold
market integrity.

About the Asian Development Bank

ADB is committed to achieving a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific,
while sustaining its efforts to eradicate extreme poverty. Established in 1966, it is owned by 68 members
—49 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue,
GLOBAL BITCOIN MARKETS
AND LOCAL REGULATIONS
loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance.

Cyn-Young Park, Shu (Grace) Tian, and Bo Zhao

NO. 605 ADB ECONOMICS

January 2020 WORKING PAPER SERIES

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City
1550 Metro Manila, Philippines ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
www.adb.org
 ADB Economics Working Paper Series

Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations

Cyn-Young Park, Shu (Grace) Tian, Cyn-Young Park ([email protected]) is a director from the
and Bo Zhao Regional Cooperation and Integration Division, Shu
(Grace) Tian ([email protected]) is an economist from the
No. 605 | January 2020 Macroeconomics Research Division, and Bo Zhao
([email protected]) is a former economist at the
Economic Research and Regional Cooperation
Department, Asian Development Bank.
Comments from ADB Chief Economist Yasuyuki Sawada
and participants at the 43rd Conference of the Federal of
ASEAN Economic Associations (November 2018) are
gratefully acknowledged

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

  Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO)

© 2019 Asian Development Bank

6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines
Tel +63 2 8632 4444; Fax +63 2 8636 2444
www.adb.org

Some rights reserved. Published in 2019.

ISSN 2313-6537 (print), 2313-6545 (electronic)

Publication Stock No. WPS200006-2
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/WPS200006-2

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.

ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any
consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they
are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country”
in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/. By using the content of this publication, you agree to be bound
by the terms of this license. For attribution, translations, adaptations, and permissions, please read the provisions
and terms of use at https://www.adb.org/terms-use#openaccess.

This CC license does not apply to non-ADB copyright materials in this publication. If the material is attributed
to another source, please contact the copyright owner or publisher of that source for permission to reproduce it.
ADB cannot be held liable for any claims that arise as a result of your use of the material.

Please contact [email protected] if you have questions or comments with respect to content, or if you wish
to obtain copyright permission for your intended use that does not fall within these terms, or for permission to use
the ADB logo.

Corrigenda to ADB publications may be found at http://www.adb.org/publications/corrigenda.

Notes:
In this publication, “$” refers to United States dollars.
ADB recognizes “China” as the People’s Republic of China.

The ADB Economics Working Paper Series presents data, information, and/or findings from ongoing research and
studies to encourage exchange of ideas and to elicit comment and feedback about development issues in Asia and
the Pacific. Since papers in this series are intended for quick and easy dissemination, the content may or may not be
fully edited and may later be modified for final publication.
 CONTENTS

TABLES AND FIGURES iv

ABSTRACT v

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY 3

III. BACKGROUND 6

IV. METHODOLOGY 10
A. Data 10
B. Empirical Model 11
C. Results 13

V. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 19

REFERENCES 21
 TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES
1 Regulation Events 10
2 Descriptive Statistics 12
3 Effects of Regulation Events on Local Bitcoin Price 14
4 Effects of Regulation Events on Local Bitcoin Trading Volume 16
5 Effects of Financial Openness 18

FIGURES
1 History of Bitcoin Price, 1 October 2013–31 May 2018 2
2 Bitcoin Trading Volume in Different Markets, January 2013–January 2018 7
3 Share of Bitcoin Trading Volume in Different Markets, January 2013–January 2018 7
4 Bitcoin Prices in Six Major Markets 8
5 Bitcoin Trading Volumes in Six Major Markets 9
6 Cumulative Average Abnormal Return after the Regulation Events 15
7 Cumulative Average Abnormal Volume after the Regulation Events 17
 ABSTRACT

Since the launch of Bitcoin in 2009, the spectacular rise and fall of cryptocurrencies and the
underlying blockchain technology have attracted global attention. While the application of distributed
ledger technology presents great economic and business potential, significant volatility and speculative
trading of cryptocurrencies have raised concerns over investor and consumer protection and
prompted government interventions within their respective jurisdictions. This study focuses on the six
Bitcoin trading markets comprising 99% of global trading volume as of February 2018. Adopting the
event study methodology to newly compiled information about local regulation events, we find that
the effect of government regulations on the Bitcoin price is only short-lived, but regulations discourage
trading activities for a longer term in local markets. Interestingly, however, the repressive effect of
domestic regulations on trading activities can be mitigated by the domestic financial market openness.
Together, these findings are consistent with the view that Bitcoin markets are globally integrated and
that, to uphold market integrity, international cooperation would be essential.

Keywords: Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, financial market openness, international cooperation, regulation

JEL codes: E61, G10, G14, G18

 I. INTRODUCTION

Since the launch of Bitcoin in 2009, the spectacular rise and fall of cryptocurrencies and the
underlying blockchain technology have attracted global attention. During 2017, the price of Bitcoin and
other cryptocurrencies increased dramatically before falling steeply in 2018. As one of the first
products employing distributed ledger technology, Bitcoin has sparked considerable controversy
among investors, policy makers, and researchers over its potential as a possible substitute for currency
or simply its asset nature as a commodity.

As the price of Bitcoin fluctuated sharply in recent years, with the largest daily change of 17%
between 2017 and 2018, many national authorities and regulatory agencies started to regulate the local
Bitcoin market through either communication or direct intervention amid concern over speculative
investor hysteria and its implications for financial stability. Meanwhile, observers debate whether
regulators should intervene and, if so, what approaches would be appropriate given a major tradeoff
between protecting investors and encouraging financial innovation.

An increasing number of countries have become concerned about the risks, particularly those
associated with nonsovereign cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are “mined”, scarce,
with limited supply, and uncontrolled by any central political authority (Al-Khazali, Elie, and Roubaud
2018).1 Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and the rapid rise in its price may have been purely speculative.
But can this justify strict regulation? Financial regulators and policy makers should ensure that trading
occurs in an organized manner and investors are protected against manipulation. But beyond that,
unless the cryptocurrency poses a systemic risk or a threat to financial stability, the rationale for
regulation remains weak. And regulatory effectiveness is yet another issue. Because national regulators
can only regulate cryptocurrency within their own jurisdictions dominated by their fiat currencies, the
decentralized nature of Bitcoin formation and trading pose a challenge to the national regulators in
how to curb speculative investor behaviors from nondomestic markets in the global Bitcoin network
(Böhme et al. 2015).

Globally, most Bitcoin trading volume is in six markets denominated by major currencies: the
United States (US) dollar, yuan, won, yen, euro, and pound sterling. Although the traded asset is
homogeneous, Bitcoin prices vary across different markets, driven by market friction, including
institutional factors, information asymmetry, transaction costs, and so on. (Merton 1987, Shleifer and
Vishny 1997, DeLong et al. 1990, and Grobm and Vayanos 2002)

Because market friction limits arbitrage opportunities across different markets, the prices of
the Bitcoin in individual markets may differ from each other although the crypto assets being traded
are identical. Market frictions lead to market segmentation to a certain extent, where each market
forms its respective pricing dynamics subject to local market demand and supply. When a market
introduces a regulation or signals an authority stance in the form of communication, local trading may
be affected, and local price dynamics could be influenced. While the impact on equity and bond prices
of public information such as regulation, macroeconomic data releases, and political events has been
extensively documented in the literature (Gilbert et al. 2017; Hansen and McMahon 2016; Gau and
Wu 2017; Frijns, Indriawan, and Tourani-Rad 2015; Even-Tov 2017; Bernanke and Kuttner 2005;
Verrecchia 2001), no such evidence is documented in the Bitcoin market.

1
“Mining” is essentially the acquisition and creation of cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin, as a way to introduce more coins
into the system, as rewards for doing computational work.
2 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

Figure 1: History of Bitcoin Price, 1 October 2013–31 May 2018

20,000

15,000
BPI ($)

10,000

5,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

BPI = Bitcoin Price Index.

Source: Coindesk.com

Regulations and related policy announcements would likely affect pricing dynamics, trading
behavior, liquidity, and market efficiency in national Bitcoin markets. Yet, given that cryptoassets do
not necessarily belong to any single jurisdiction, it is unclear to what extent Bitcoin prices would
respond to local market regulations. More specifically, during excessive volatility in Bitcoin markets,
many countries have introduced regulation and announcements to curb speculation and prevent
illegal and unfair acts in cryptocurrency trading. However, how effective local market regulation is in
guiding the Bitcoin market and to what extent such individual market regulation will affect Bitcoin
prices and trading activity in different jurisdictions remain unanswered questions. To understand these
questions, this study tests the theoretical implications on how market frictions caused by local
regulations will lead to discrepancies in prices of an identical assets in global markets.

By examining the regulations and market reactions to these regulatory events across markets,
this study aims to answer the following questions:

(i) Is local regulation effective in guiding price dynamics and trading activity in Bitcoin
markets that are global in nature?
(ii) How integrated is the global Bitcoin market? If market frictions caused by local
regulations have lasting impact on national Bitcoin prices, a significant degree of
market segmentation must exist in cross-border trading of Bitcoin worldwide.
(iii) If global Bitcoin markets are segmented, what other potential factors may contribute to
it? Do other factors, such as financial market development, market depth and liquidity,
and financial openness affect the effectiveness of regulations on national Bitcoin
markets?
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 3

With new evidence, we reveal policy implications for regulatory effectiveness in global Bitcoin
markets. We can examine whether national regulators have effective tools to govern Bitcoin markets
that trade globally to protect investors and safeguard financial stability. The results shed light on how
national regulators can collaborate for a more harmonized approach across jurisdictions to foster the
healthy development of the cryptocurrency market.

Knowledge about the Bitcoin market can be broadly divided into three groups. One group of
studies tries to understand the nature of cryptocurrencies, while another investigates the factors that
may determine the cryptocurrency price. The third group investigates market friction that may cause
individual market price discrepancies among Bitcoin markets across jurisdictions. For example, Pieters
and Vivanco (2017) and Viglione (2015) both document that Bitcoin prices vary across individual
markets and suggest that market attributes caused the price differences across jurisdictions dominated
by different fiat currencies. Nevertheless, since regulators can only intervene in Bitcoin trading in their
own jurisdictions, our study extends Pieters and Vivanco (2017) and Viglione (2015) by investigating
how shocks in the form of individual market regulations would influence local and international Bitcoin
markets.

Using 12 regulations issued by the six major Bitcoin markets from 28 April 2013 to 12 February
2018, we examine relative price reactions to individual markets’ regulations over the benchmark global
Bitcoin index. We find that Bitcoin prices drop where local market regulations have been introduced.
This was a short-term drop in cumulative abnormal return lasting for 1–2 days following a regulation
event announcement. However, the abnormal price pattern disappears from the third day onward.
Such price movement indicates that local regulation may only have a short-lived impact on the local
Bitcoin price. This is intuitive, as the Bitcoin price is determined in a global peer-to-peer trading
network, which offers cross-border arbitrage opportunities. But this does not necessarily mean that a
regulation event has no impact at all. Further examination indicates that trading activities are
significantly influenced by local market regulation events. In particular, a long-term decline in trading
volume is documented following the introduction of local regulations, but the magnitude of this
repressive effect is smaller in a country with higher financial openness.

The evidence found in this study supports the arguments in Pieters and Vivanco (2017) and
Viglione (2015) that local market regulation is a key factor that triggers market friction in global Bitcoin
transactions. This study further suggests that, despite market friction, the global Bitcoin market
remains highly integrated. Short-term price discrepancies across individual markets may arise through
local regulations that influence investors’ trading strategies and activity. Since local market regulations
become less effective after a very short time, our evidence implies that global Bitcoin markets are not
as segmented. This study also implies that international cooperation would be needed to tackle
speculative trading in the Bitcoin markets while preventing fraud and potential risks to financial
stability.

In this study, section II reviews the research on the Bitcoin market. Section III provides the
background on Bitcoin and its regulations. Section IV describes the sample construction and research
design. Section V documents empirical findings and section VI concludes with policy implications.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY

In the literature, Bitcoin is largely documented as an investment instrument rather than as a currency.
A European Central Bank board member noted that cryptocurrencies do not qualify as a currency and
banks should separate virtual currency business from other trading and investment activities they do
4 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

(Canepa 2018). The Bank for International Settlements also argued that cryptocurrencies are unable
to sustain a monetary system and may not be considered as a currency (Tahir 2018). In particular,
Yermack (2013) examines the three functions of a typical currency: value storage, medium of
exchange, and account unit. He argues that Bitcoin, which features speculative trading, excessive
volatility, low liquidity, cyber security issues, large unit price, limited payment options, as well as low
correlation with conventional currency and gold, behaves like a speculative asset rather than a
currency.

Nonetheless, although Bitcoin lacks validity as a currency, some studies note other potential
functions, such as a hedge and safe haven against global shocks. Bouoiyour and Selmi (2015)
investigate a set of potential determinants of Bitcoin prices over the short and long run, and argue that
Bitcoin behaves more like a speculative asset than a hedging asset like gold. However, Dyhrberg
(2016a) indicates that Bitcoin and gold share similarities in that they have no nationality, are mined,
and are globally standardized. Dyhrberg (2016a, 2016b) provides empirical evidence that Bitcoin prices
display risk-hedging properties like gold and it can be used as hedge against shocks in stock and
currency markets in the short term. Bouri, Molnár, Azzi, Roubaud, and Hagfors (2017) show that
Bitcoin may serve as a safe-haven asset for Asian stocks, but do not show effective hedge capacity for
major global stock, bond, oil, gold, and commodity indexes as well as a US dollar index. Moreover, the
hedging property is sensitive to investment horizons. Bouri, Gupta, Kumar Tiwari, and Roubaud (2017)
further decompose Bitcoin returns across different investment horizons indicating that the
cryptocurrency shows hedging properties against global uncertainties captured by the Chicago Board
Options Exchange Volatility Index and can be used in short-term hedging. Overall, the hedging
capacity of Bitcoin varies across types of risky assets and seems to work over a short horizon.
Nevertheless, research shows that Bitcoin serves as a suitable diversifying asset (Bouri, Molnár, Azzi,
Roubaud, and Hagfors 2017; Stavroyiannis 2018).

However, the highly volatile price patterns, which work against Bitcoin’s value as a hedge and
safe-haven commodity, have invited interest in understanding pricing formation in the Bitcoin market.
For instance, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs (2016) explore the determinants of Bitcoin prices using
three sets of pricing factors: supply-demand forces, investment attractiveness, and macroeconomic
and financial conditions. They find that supply-demand forces and investment attractiveness have a
significant impact on the Bitcoin price, but these impacts decrease during the more recent sample
period, and macroeconomic and financial factors overall have a weaker impact on Bitcoin prices,
especially in the long run. Balcilar et al. (2017) analyze the impact of trading activities on Bitcoin
returns and volatility and show the predictive ability of trading volume in future Bitcoin performance.
Urquhart (2017) finds evidence of Bitcoin price clustering and shows that the price clustering is
positively affected by the level of Bitcoin price and trading volume. But Blau (2018) argues that
speculative trading does not seem to be related to the huge swings in Bitcoin price and the high
volatility in the Bitcoin market.

While most studies treat Bitcoin market as a single market, a few studies note the price
differentiation of Bitcoin across different markets. Viglione (2015) examines the role of governance
quality in individual markets on Bitcoin pricing and finds that, as an international asset, Bitcoin’s prices
are significantly influenced by the institutional environment of its trading market. In particular,
economic freedom is found to significantly lower the premium of Bitcoin in a particular market. Pieters
and Vivanco (2017) document significant differences among Bitcoin prices across major markets and
attribute such price differentials to market characteristics. They suggest that markets with stricter
financial regulations, such as requiring customer identification, tend to deviate from other markets’
pricing processes. This strand of studies directly links to the literature, looking at how market friction
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 5

would create price discrepancies for the same assets trading in different markets. Extant knowledge
shows that market friction—institutional factors, transaction costs, and information asymmetry—has
driven discrepancies among market prices and limited arbitrage (see Merton 1987, Shleifer and Vishny
1997, DeLong et al. 1990, and Grobm and Vayanos 2002, among others).

While Viglione (2015) and Pieters and Vivanco (2017) address how such factors as governance
and financial sector regulations drive price discrepancies in different Bitcoin markets, this study
extends them by introducing exogenous shocks of regulation announcement, which may form new
market frictions, and accessing the impact of these new local market frictions from a market efficiency
perspective using event study. After controlling proxies for market friction, the study examines market
reaction to various regulations across individual markets. The literature has long established that
financial markets react to public information that extensively influences firm valuation, trading volume,
market liquidity, and market efficiency (Diamond and Verrecchia 1991, Verrecchia 2001, Leuz and
Wysocki 2007, Gao 2008, Kondor 2012). As a form of exogenous public information, regulations will
direct investor trading, which will incorporate related information into asset prices.2 While the policy
reactions of Bitcoin prices have been widely observed, less is known about how the prices of global
assets react to regulations in national markets. Thus, this study offers novel evidence on how national
regulation may influence Bitcoin prices and trading activity within and beyond the national markets.
The evidence also suggests the necessity for regulators across countries to collaborate to foster the
healthy development of the cryptocurrency market.

This study is related to earlier studies that explore Bitcoin market efficiency but treat Bitcoin as
a single universal market. Urquhart (2016) investigates efficiency in the Bitcoin market, finding that it is
inefficient at an early stage but shows some efficiency later. Nadarajah and Chu (2017) document that
the Bitcoin market is efficient using a transformed Bitcoin return. Brandvold et al. (2015) investigate
the price discovery role of major Bitcoin exchanges and find that large exchanges, such as Mt. Gox,
foster price discovery in the Bitcoin market and serve as major information providers.3 While this
strand of research sheds light on how information is priced and assesses market efficiency in the
Bitcoin market, they treat Bitcoin as a universal asset in a single market and ignore the price
discrepancy in different individual markets. This paper extends this strand of studies on how different
local Bitcoin markets react to local regulation events as external shocks.

Adding to this group of research, our study utilizes exogenous shocks in the form of regulation
events in individual Bitcoin markets to understand how Bitcoin prices and trading activities respond to
regulation shocks. In particular, we show how national regulations affect actual trading behaviors and
perceptions of Bitcoin that are priced in global Bitcoin markets. In doing so, this study extends and
contributes to the literature with additional knowledge about pricing discovery across different Bitcoin
markets.

2
Other than regulations, typical examples of exogenous public information include macroeconomic data releases (among
others, see Flannery and Protopapadakis 2002, Rigobon and Sack 2004, Bernanke and Kuttner 2005), and political
events such as US President Donald Trump’s election (Wagner, Zeckhauser, and Ziegler 2018).
3
Mt. Gox was launched in July 2010. In February 2014, Mt. Gox suspended trading, closed its website and exchange
service, and filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors.
6 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

III. BACKGROUND

Cryptocurrencies are digital tokens created, stored, and governed electronically by an open,
decentralized cryptography system. Cryptocurrency can be used to exchange fiat currency, to buy
certain goods and services, or as an investment vehicle. Over 1,500 cryptocurrencies exist, with a
market cap of $400 billion as of February 2018, with Bitcoin the largest, representing a third of the
market (J.P. Morgan Global Research 2018). Bitcoin combines distributed ledger technology and
cryptography in the context of a blockchain with no central issuing authority or physical forms.

Bitcoin uses cryptography to guide encryption protocols that identify ownership and verify
transactions (Pieters and Vivanco 2017). It is designed to provide a nonsovereign, permissionless,
decentralized trust solution, with security provided through the blockchain structure. As a
“permissionless” system, it is open to anyone who downloads the open source software, with the
transaction record publicly available. As a decentralized system, there is no single or group of
controllers of Bitcoin, but rather all participants are involved in the development and use of the system.
Bitcoin also uses the proof-of-work concept to achieve consensus among the nodes, with transaction
confirmation through independent users who solve cryptographic problems to generate new blocks
evidencing transactions, and these users are in turn paid in newly created Bitcoin (as well as applicable
commissions). This process is called “mining.” The Bitcoin is designed to an ultimate number of 21
million and once mined, every Bitcoin (or a fraction) can be traded on exchanges operated and
accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

During 2017, the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies increased dramatically, before
falling steeply at the beginning of 2018. Bitcoin and a number of other cryptocurrencies were arguably
the focus of one of the largest speculative bubbles in history, with a large volume of mining and trading
taking place in Asia. Bitcoins are traded on exchanges dominated by different currencies. Six markets
dominated by the US dollar, yuan, won, yen, euro, and pound accounted for more than 99% of all
Bitcoin trading volume during the sample period from January 2013 to January 2018.4 Figure 2 depicts
total trading volume with major fiat currencies over the full sample period. It shows the yuan has been
the dominant currency for global Bitcoin trading, making up more than 88% of total Bitcoin trading.
Figure 3 shows the evolution of the market structure of Bitcoin trading. Since January 2017, the
proportion of Bitcoin trading in yuan significantly decreased. This signifies the impact of the initial
crackdown of the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and relevant regulatory agency
on the initial coin offering market and later the official shutdown of local online exchanges registered
and operating in the PRC. Since then, the proportion of US dollar and yen has started to increase, and
the US dollar market has become the largest trading market.

Bitcoin is not pegged to the US dollar or other currencies, nor set by any exchange or
government. While Bitcoin is a global asset—an asset that is identical globally—local prices of Bitcoin
differ across national markets due to various market frictions. Given market friction in international
currency and financial markets, cross-border arbitrage can be quite costly to exercise. If an investor
wants to exploit the price differences across markets and arbitrage, possible costs could include money
transfer costs, bid–ask spread on exchange rates, limits to the minimum or maximum amount in money
transfers, time delays, price uncertainty, and commission fees to trade Bitcoin. Moreover, local
government regulations and policies would create market friction and discourage arbitrage
opportunities.

4
According to CryptoCompare. https://www.cryptocompare.com/ (accessed 1 February 2018).
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 7

Figure 2: Bitcoin Trading Volume in Different Markets, January 2013–January 2018

(%)
Others
JPY (0.88) (0.31)
USD
(9.12)
KRW (0.62)
GBP (0.22)

EUR (1.25)

CNY (87.60)

CNY EUR GBP KRW JPY USD Others

CNY = yuan, EUR = euro, GBP = pound sterling, KRW = won, JPY = yen, USD = United States dollar.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on various data sources.

Figure 3: Share of Bitcoin Trading Volume in Different Markets, January 2013–January 2018
100

80

60
%

40

20

0
1–Jan–2013 1–Jan–2014 1–Jan–2015 1–Jan–2016 1–Jan–2017 1–Jan–2018
Date
USD CNY JPY KRW EUR GBP Others

CNY = yuan, EUR = euro, GBP = pound sterling, KRW = won, JPY = yen, USD = United States dollar.
Source: CryptoCompare. https://www.cryptocompare.com/ (accessed 1 February 2018).
8 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

Thus, even as Bitcoin is meant to be globally traded as a universal digital asset, its price will be
affected by local demand and supply. Different currency denominations in local markets also lead
cryptocurrency prices to vary across markets due to frictions and risk premia in foreign exchange
markets. In the global Bitcoin market, since cryptocurrency supplies are tightly controlled over the
short run, day-to-day variation in the value of cryptocurrencies is mainly driven by changes in local
demand and trading conditions for cryptocurrency. In particular, local government regulations and
other macroeconomic events may affect investor expectations over the long-term value of
cryptocurrency and hence its price.

Figure 4 shows that different Bitcoin markets show different pricing patterns. For instance, a
unique “Kimchi premium” seems to exist in the Republic of Korea market, potentially driven by excess
demand in the local market. The cross-market price discrepancy is important to understanding the role
of market friction and regulations in the Bitcoin markets. As Figure 4 shows, during December 2017 to
January 2018, the Bitcoin price was especially volatile in the yuan market, while prices are valued
higher in yen and won compared to those in other currencies. Figure 5 shows the variation in trading
patterns across major Bitcoin markets. According to Viglione (2015) and Pieters and Vivanco (2017),
regulations and institutional quality in local markets contribute to the pricing dynamics in local Bitcoin
prices.

While investors’ interest in cryptocurrencies as well as the potential of underlying distributed

ledger technology has grown massively, policy makers and regulators around the world have become
concerned about speculative behavior and associated risks in cryptocurrency, especially from the
perspectives of investor protection and financial stability.

Figure 4: Bitcoin Prices in Six Major Markets

25,000

20,000
Bitcoin price in ($)

15,000

10,000

5,000
01–Nov–2017 01–Dec–2017 01–Jan–2018 01–Feb–2018 22–Feb–2018

Global USD JPY KRW CNY GBP EUR

CNY = yuan, EUR = euro, GBP = pound sterling, KRW = won, JPY = yen, USD = United States dollar.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on various data sources.
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 9

Figure 5: Bitcoin Trading Volumes in Six Major Markets

0.6
Bitcoin million

0.4

0.2

0
01–Nov–2017 01–Dec–2017 01–Jan–2018 01–Feb–2018 22–Feb–2018

USD KRW JPY CNY EUR GBP

CNY = yuan, EUR = euro, GBP = pound sterling, KRW = won, JPY = yen, USD = United States dollar.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on various data sources.

However, regulatory approaches to cryptocurrencies and their applications differ from

jurisdiction to jurisdiction. General consensus exists among monetary authorities that cryptocurrency
is not a “currency.” Perception varies greatly about its potential as a nonsovereign digital token or as an
alternative asset class. Without specifying the legal status of digital money, cryptocurrency is in a legal
vacuum, and there is no unified approach to dealing with cryptocurrencies. Yet, most governments
recognize the potential of the distributed ledger technology behind cryptocurrency, which holds
promise to transform financial services and improve financial inclusion. This presents a background for
rather cautious regulatory approaches in different jurisdictions not to stifle the growth of innovation
and new technology.
Regulators in most jurisdictions have closely monitored developments in the cryptocurrency
industry, and experimented with different ways to regulate Bitcoin trading. But at the height of investor
hysteria, some made direct interventions. For example, in September 2017, government authorities in
the PRC ordered Beijing-based cryptocurrency exchanges to cease trading and immediately notify
users of their closure, signaling a widening crackdown by authorities on the industry to contain
financial risks associated with the use of cryptocurrencies (Goh 2017). Sometimes the regulators use
public communications to warn investors or encourage related innovations. In 2017, the PRC and the
Republic of Korea issued outright bans on initial coin offerings. Still others, such as Japan and
Singapore, opted for far less radical approaches. Since key questions remain unanswered, causing
additional law enforcement issues, it is too early to tell what kind of regulation is right or wrong: the
answer depends on the specific situation.
This study offers insights into the degree of market integration for global Bitcoin trading and
how investors react to local regulations that create frictions in local transactions of the globally traded
Bitcoin. Specifically, the study investigates how government regulations in the form of
communications and direct interventions in cryptocurrencies affect local Bitcoin prices and trading
volumes and how the price of Bitcoin converges internationally despite local regulations.
10 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

IV. METHODOLOGY

A. Data

To answer our research questions, we acquired global Bitcoin price data from coinmarketcap.com,
where the global Bitcoin price is calculated by taking the volume weighted average of Bitcoin prices in
393 Bitcoin exchanges. The price unit is in US dollars. Bitcoin prices in six major markets against their
fiat currencies—US dollar, won, yen, euro, pound, and yuan—are acquired from cryptocompare.com.
The price unit is in the local currency. We use foreign exchange rates of the US dollar against each of
the other five currencies to convert all prices to the US dollar. All US dollar exchange rates are from the
Federal Reserve System and obtained from 12 noon Eastern Daylight Time (4 p.m. Universal Time
Coordinated) US dollar buying rates in New York City.

We collected detailed regulation information, including announcing time, regulatory agency,

content, and purpose, if any. The cryptocurrency regulation data are mainly from law firm Perkins Coie
and cross-checked with various online resources and news releases. Originally, our sample period
included 44 events from five countries and one region. We first dropped nonregulation related events,
leaving 16 regulation-related events.

To clearly identify the regulation impact, we require that the regulation event windows cannot
overlap with each other. The longest event window we examine is [0, 10], that is, from the day of
regulation announcement to 10 days after. Therefore, we restrict the difference between
announcement days to be no less than 11 days. In case of overlapping, we drop both events from our
sample. After the filtering, our sample consists of 12 regulation events with event windows long enough
before and after. Table 1 lists all regulation events we used to identify the event effects in the five major
economies. The euro area does not appear in the table since, after the filtering, there is no regulation
event from the euro area left during our sample period.

Table 1: Regulation Events

Local
ID Event Date Country Currency Type Brief Content
1 25–Apr–2014 PRC yuan Communication The PRC warned banks to cease doing
cryptocurrency-related business.
2 19–Jun–2014 Japan yen Communication Japan planned not to regulate Bitcoin.
3 18–Sep–2015 US US dollar Intervention The US classified Bitcoin as a commodity.
4 24–Feb–2016 Japan yen Intervention Japan proposed a legislation that would recognize
virtual currencies as equal to conventional
currencies.
5 06–Jan–2017 PRC yuan Intervention The PRC inspected major Bitcoin exchanges.
6 01–Apr–2017 Japan yen Intervention Japan enacted a new law authorizing the use of
digital currency as a method of payment,
essentially granting it the same legal status as any
other currency.
7 17–Apr–2017 UK pound Communication The Bank of England governor stated that the
sterling fintech sector did not need the same level of
regulations as banks.
8 03–Sep–2017 PRC yuan Intervention The PRC banned initial coin offerings.
continued on next page
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 11

Table 1 continued
Local
ID Event Date Country Currency Type Brief Content
9 15–Sep–2017 PRC yuan Intervention The PRC shut down all cryptocurrency exchanges.
10 30–Sep–2017 Japan yen Intervention Japan granted its first licenses for cryptocurrency
exchanges.
11 20–Nov–2017 PRC yuan Communication The governor of the People’s Bank of China said in
an economic forum that people are free to
participate in the Bitcoin market.
12 28–Dec–2017 Republic won Communication The Republic of Korea planned to shut down
of Korea cryptocurrency exchanges.

PRC = People’s Republic of China, UK = United Kingdom, US = United States.

Source: Authors’ summary based on various data sources.

To control for financial market friction, depth, and openness in each market in our sample, we
also collected daily gold price data in local currency from Bloomberg, foreign exchange rate indices
from the Bank for International Settlements, M2 data from International Financial Statistics (IFS)
from International Monetary Fund database, gross domestic product (GDP) data from the World
Bank national accounts data database, and Bitcoin trading volume data from CryptoCompare.com.5

B. Empirical Model

We employ the event study methodology to investigate the impact of regulations on local market
Bitcoin prices and trading volumes. We take the announcement time of the regulations as the event
time, and examine whether Bitcoin prices after these events display abnormal returns (i.e., returns in
excess of expected returns) and abnormal trading volumes (i.e., trading volumes in excess of expected
trading volumes).

The abnormal return is calculated as the difference between the Bitcoin return in a certain
single market on a day and the benchmark global return on the same day. The benchmark global return
is calculated using the global price index, which is the volume weighted average of Bitcoin prices in 393
Bitcoin exchanges. Our return premium is defined similarly to Viglione (2015).

AR it  R it  Rˆit (1)

where AR it is the abnormal return for Bitcoin on day t in market i , R it is the daily return on Bitcoin
on day t in local market i , 𝑅 is the benchmark global Bitcoin return on day t in local market i .

Since there is no benchmark global trading volume, we calculate the abnormal trading volume
as the difference between the Bitcoin trading volume in a certain local market on day t and the
average trading volume in the same market during the previous 5 days from t  5 to t  1 , that is, the
estimation window.

5
All data are accessed on 23 February 2018.
12 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

The cumulative abnormal return (CAR ) is calculated to measure the aggregate effect on the
abnormal returns during the event window, that is, the days around the announcement day 0. We
examine several different event windows: [0], [0, 1], [0, 2], [0, 5] and [0, 10]. Similarly, we calculate the
cumulative abnormal volume (CAV ) around the same event windows.

Using the cumulative abnormal return and cumulative abnormal volume as dependent
variables, we then run regressions on two key independent variables. local it is a dummy variable with 1
indicating that the regulation is a local event. Communicationit is a dummy variable with 1 indicating
that the regulation event is in the form of regulatory communication (versus direct intervention).

Yit   local it  Communicationit  Controls it   it (2)

where dependent variables Yit represents CAR it being the cumulative abnormal return or CAV it
being cumulative abnormal volume on day t in local Bitcoin market i . Independent variable local it
is a dummy variable equal to 1 when a regulation is announced in local market i on day t ,
Communicationit is a dummy variable equal to 1 when a regulatory communication (versus direct
intervention) is made in local market i on day t , Controls it are control variables that may cause the
difference in Bitcoin return or trading volume in different markets, which include: (i) existing market
friction proxied by gold return difference between the local market and the global market during the
previous 30 trading days in the local market i on day t ; (ii) gold price in the local market i on day
t , which captures the level of investor risk-averse; (iii) average Bitcoin trading volume to capture
investor sentiment in Bitcoin market in the local market i on day t ; (iv) annual foreign exchange
rate volatility to capture macroeconomic soundness; (v) M2/GDP ratio to capture monetary stance
in the local market; and (vi) Chinn–Ito index to proxy for financial openness in the local market
(Chinn and Ito 2006).

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

Variables Descriptions Mean SD Min Max

Local regulation Dummy = 1 if there is a local regulation 0.167 0.375 0.000 1.000

Regulation by Dummy = 1 if regulation is by communication 0.417 0.496 0.000 1.000

communication (versus direct intervention)

Gold price Local daily gold price ($1,000) 1.266 0.054 1.140 1.325

Gold return Prior 30-day average (local - global) –0.029 0.072 –0.263 0.114
difference gold return (%)

FX volatility Average foreign exchange volatility (2014–2017) 5.259 1.710 3.155 7.844

M2/GDP ratio Average M2/GDP ratio (2014–2016)a 1.233 0.479 0.668 1.922
a
Chinn–Ito index Average Chinn–Ito index (2014–2016) 1.595 1.292 –1.202 2.360

Bitcoin volume Aggregated Bitcoin transaction volume 0.144 0.263 0.001 0.724
(2014–2017; Bitcoin trillion)

FX = foreign exchange rate, GDP = gross domestic product, M2 = money supply, SD = standard deviation.
a
Data are not available for 2017.
Source: Authors’ calculation.
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 13

Data for the variables are collected from multiple sources. Gold prices and exchange rates are
collected from Bloomberg, M2/GDP ratio is from Haver, Chinn–Ito index is collected from the Chinn–
Ito website,6 and Bitcoin prices and trading volume is from CryptoCompare.7 Table 2 summarizes
these variables.

C. Results

Do regulation events cause abnormal returns and volumes in the local Bitcoin trading market
compared to other markets? If so, does the effect of these regulation events last long? Is the effect
magnitude related to local financial market attributes? We present three sets of results.

Table 3 reports the first, on the effects of regulation events on local Bitcoin CAR in different
event windows. Columns (1) to (5) show that the effect is statistically significant and negative on the
announcement day (day 0) and the day after (day 1). More interestingly, the regulation impact
becomes statistically insignificant on local Bitcoin CAR after day 1. The results mean that the event
announcement has a significant impact on local market Bitcoin prices, but such an impact tends to be
short-lived and becomes insignificant from 2 days after the announcement onward.

In columns (6) to (10) of Table 3 we explore the possible different impacts between two types
of regulation events, being communication or intervention. The results show that the two types of
regulation events do not exert significantly different effects on pricing. The effect of local regulation
still stays the same and robust after we add the event type dummy variable.

The pattern is visualized in Figure 6 showing that the regulation events seem to have an
initial negative impact on local CARs (not so much on the nonlocal markets and the global market),
but the impact diminishes after 2 trading days. In general, the results in Table 3 indicate that local
regulation has a short-lived impact on Bitcoin prices, which diminish very soon afterward. This
suggests that global Bitcoin markets are well integrated with very short-term arbitrage opportunities
across markets.

6
The Chinn–Ito Index. http://web.pdx.edu/~ito/Chinn-Ito_website.htm.
7
CryptoCompare. https://www.cryptocompare.com/.
 Table 3: Effects of Regulation Events on Local Bitcoin Price

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Variables car0 car0to1 car0to2 car0to5 car0to10 car0 car0to1 car0to2 car0to5 car0to10
Local regulation –0.021** –0.040*** –0.008 –0.039 –0.053 –0.021** –0.047*** –0.009 –0.039 –0.052
(0.009) (0.015) (0.014) (0.029) (0.041) (0.009) (0.015) (0.014) (0.029) (0.040)
Regulation by communication 0.001 0.004 –0.011 0.001 0.050
(0.007) (0.012) (0.010) (0.022) (0.031)
Gold price 0.112* 0.178* 0.095 0.084 0.293 0.133** 0.165 0.134 0.082 0.111
(0.058) (0.094) (0.084) (0.174) (0.259) (0.062) (0.103) (0.091) (0.192) (0.280)
Gold return difference 0.020 –0.029 0.014 –0.068 –0.181 0.024 –0.025 0.001 –0.068 –0.122
(0.044) (0.074) (0.066) (0.140) (0.198) (0.045) (0.075) (0.067) (0.144) (0.199)
14 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

FX volatility 0.002 0.006 0.000 0.004 0.014 0.002 0.006 0.000 0.004 0.014
(0.003) (0.005) (0.004) (0.009) (0.013) (0.003) (0.005) (0.004) (0.010) (0.013)
M2/GDP ratio 0.024** 0.036* 0.013 0.006 0.083 0.024** 0.036* 0.013 0.006 0.084
(0.011) (0.019) (0.017) (0.036) (0.051) (0.011) (0.019) (0.017) (0.036) (0.050)
Bitcoin volume –0.012 –0.012 0.003 0.007 –0.021 –0.013 –0.012 0.002 0.007 –0.020
(0.015) (0.025) (0.022) (0.047) (0.066) (0.015) (0.025) (0.022) (0.047) (0.065)

Financial openness (Chinn–Ito index) 0.009*** 0.005 0.013*** –0.012 0.002 0.009*** 0.005 0.013** –0.012 0.003
(0.003) (0.005) (0.005) (0.010) (0.014) (0.003) (0.005) (0.005) (0.010) (0.014)
Constant –0.185** –0.293** –0.156 –0.107 –0.521 –0.213** –0.278** –0.200 –0.104 –0.313
(0.080) (0.130) (0.116) (0.241) (0.357) (0.084) (0.138) (0.123) (0.259) (0.376)
Observations 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
R-squared 0.215 0.194 0.156 0.058 0.100 0.238 0.195 0.172 0.058 0.135

FX = foreign exchange rate, GDP = gross domestic product, M2 = money supply.

Notes: car0, car0to1, car0to2, car0to5, car0to10 are cumulative abnormal returns on event day 0, from event day 0 to 1 day after the event, from event day 0 to 2 days after the event, from event
day 0 to 5 days after the event, and from event day 0 to 10 days after the event, respectively. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Source: Authors’ calculation.
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 15

Figure 6: Cumulative Average Abnormal Return after the Regulation Events

0.03

0.02

0.01

–0.01

–0.02

0 2 4 6 8 10
Days to the event
All Local Nonlocal

Source: Authors’ calculation based on various data sources.

Table 4 reports the second and quite interesting set of empirical results showing the effect of
local regulation on CAV. The regulatory impact on trading behavior shows how direct host government
action can drive investors out of the country, but cannot effectively control the global demand for
Bitcoin and its price. Columns (1)–(5) show that after the announcement of a regulation event,
abnormal trading volume increased from day 0 to day 2 afterward in the local Bitcoin market and then
declined until 10 days afterward. The results indicate that investors initially trade even more actively to
adjust their positions in the local market in response to the local regulation announcement. But after 2
days, the overall trading activity in the local market drops significantly. Such a decrease in trading is not
reverted even after 10 days, indicating that local regulation seems to have a lasting repressive impact
on trading in the local market. Given that the global Bitcoin price has been generally unaffected by the
local regulatory event, it seems investors simply migrated to the markets where the new regulation
cannot be enforced and continued trading.

In columns (6)–(10) of Table 4, exploring whether trading responds differently to the two
types of regulation event announcements, we find that similar to the results on Bitcoin prices, the local
market does not react differently, and effect estimates of local regulation on trading activity are quite
robust after we add the variable of regulation type.
 Table 4: Effects of Regulation Events on Local Bitcoin Trading Volume

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Variables cav0 cav0to1 cav0to2 cav0to5 cav0to10 cav0 cav0to1 cav0to2 cav0to5 cav0to10
Local regulation 0.354* 0.399* 0.292* –0.179 –2.131** 0.354* 0.399* 0.291* –0.180 –2.136**
(0.183) (0.220) (0.158) (0.116) (1.011) (0.185) (0.222) (0.160) (0.117) (1.021)
Regulation by communication 0.003 –0.038 –0.042 –0.125 –0.459
(0.223) (0.280) (0.207) (0.150) (1.212)
Gold price –1.840 –2.129 –1.449 0.406 6.214 –1.861 –1.844 –1.137 1.315 9.541
(1.212) (1.434) (1.024) (0.732) (6.629) (2.059) (2.540) (1.863) (1.316) (11.039)
Gold return difference –0.075 –0.143 –0.036 0.039 –0.968 –0.074 –0.149 –0.042 0.011 –1.134
(0.990) (1.188) (0.855) (0.627) (5.439) (1.002) (1.202) (0.864) (0.630) (5.508)
FX volatility –0.014 –0.016 –0.013 0.004 0.086 –0.014 –0.016 –0.013 0.004 0.086
(0.062) (0.074) (0.053) (0.039) (0.342) (0.062) (0.075) (0.054) (0.039) (0.345)
16 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

M2/GDP ratio –0.071 –0.078 –0.080 –0.019 0.464 –0.071 –0.078 –0.080 –0.020 0.458
(0.236) (0.284) (0.204) (0.150) (1.307) (0.239) (0.287) (0.207) (0.151) (1.320)
Bitcoin volume 0.029 0.040 0.047 0.060 –0.024 0.029 0.039 0.047 0.059 –0.028
(0.307) (0.368) (0.265) (0.195) (1.696) (0.310) (0.372) (0.268) (0.196) (1.712)

Financial openness (Chinn–Ito index) –0.119* –0.155* –0.119** –0.019 0.243 –0.119* –0.155* –0.119** –0.020 0.241
(0.068) (0.081) (0.058) (0.043) (0.374) (0.068) (0.082) (0.059) (0.043) (0.378)
Constant 2.658 3.100 2.168 –0.485 –9.097 2.682 2.765 1.800 –1.555 –13.014
(1.651) (1.957) (1.400) (1.005) (9.060) (2.564) (3.153) (2.309) (1.632) (13.802)
54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
0.211 0.217 0.218 0.067 0.123 0.211 0.217 0.219 0.081 0.126

FX = foreign exchange rate, GDP = gross domestic product, M2 = money supply.

Notes: cav0, cav0to1, cav0to2, cav0to5, cav0to10 are cumulative abnormal trading volumes on event day 0, from event day 0 to 1 day after the event, from event day 0 to 2 days after the event,
from event day 0 to 5 days after the event, and from event day 0 to 10 days after the event, respectively. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Source: Authors’ calculation.
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 17

Table 4 results are visualized in Figure 7, which shows how local trading activity reacts to local
regulations and nonlocal regulations. The permanent drop in local trading volumes following the
regulatory event indicates that investors in Bitcoin markets are global and not confined to any local
markets, even though most traded Bitcoins are denominated in local currencies. In fact, the trading
volume in nonlocal markets moderately increased, reflecting the diffusion of the trading from the
market affected by the new regulation to all other markets. Put together, Table 4 suggests that the
local regulation would have no meaningful effects on global Bitcoin trading and prices, but it will drive
investors out of the country.

Figure 7: Cumulative Average Abnormal Volume after the Regulation Events

0.5

0
Bitcoin million

–0.5

–1.0

–1.5

–2.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Days to the event
All Local Nonlocal

Source: Authors’ calculation based on various data sources.

Other variables we include in the regressions to control for market friction and depth across
different markets do not seem to significantly drive the difference of CAR or CAV after the regulation
event. The variable for financial openness seems to have an opposite effect to local regulation,
especially on Bitcoin trading volume.

To explore the role of financial openness, in Table 5 we empirically test whether the effect of
regulation events varies with financial openness by including an interaction term between local
regulation and financial openness (Chinn–Ito index). Investors in a relatively free and open market are
expected to face lower transaction costs and barriers to asset diversification internationally. As
expected, columns (6)–(10) of Table 5 show that the negative effect of regulation events on local
Bitcoin trading activity is significantly mitigated in markets with higher financial openness. This
suggests the adjustment costs borne by the investors in response to the local regulation should be
smaller in more financially open economies.
 Table 5: Effects of Financial Openness

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Variables car0 car0to1 car0to2 car0to5 car0to10 cav0 cav0to1 cav0to2 cav0to5 cav0to10
Local regulation –0.022** –0.056*** –0.002 –0.068* –0.065 0.766*** 0.879*** 0.632*** –0.402*** –4.500***
(0.011) (0.018) (0.016) (0.034) (0.048) (0.208) (0.252) (0.182) (0.136) (1.142)
Local regulation x financial openness 0.001 0.008 –0.007 0.028 0.013 –0.351*** –0.410*** –0.291*** 0.190*** 2.019***
(0.005) (0.009) (0.008) (0.017) (0.024) (0.106) (0.129) (0.093) (0.069) (0.584)
Regulation by communication 0.001 0.003 –0.011 –0.002 0.048 –0.095 –0.167 –0.136 –0.063 0.207
(0.007) (0.012) (0.010) (0.022) (0.031) (0.204) (0.258) (0.192) (0.142) (1.103)
Gold price 0.135** 0.174* 0.127 0.114 0.123 –1.103 –0.839 –0.408 0.845 4.034
(0.063) (0.103) (0.092) (0.190) (0.283) (1.877) (2.336) (1.719) (1.241) (10.026)
Gold return difference 0.024 –0.027 0.003 –0.076 –0.126 –0.483 –0.626 –0.380 0.237 1.287
(0.045) (0.076) (0.068) (0.142) (0.200) (0.915) (1.105) (0.798) (0.594) (4.988)
18 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

FX volatility 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.014 0.001 0.002 –0.001 –0.004 0.001
(0.003) (0.005) (0.004) (0.009) (0.013) (0.057) (0.069) (0.050) (0.037) (0.310)
M2/GDP ratio 0.024** 0.034* 0.015 –0.001 0.080 0.001 0.005 –0.021 –0.058 0.050
(0.012) (0.019) (0.017) (0.036) (0.051) (0.217) (0.263) (0.190) (0.142) (1.189)
Bitcoin volume –0.012 –0.011 0.001 0.011 –0.019 0.001 0.007 0.025 0.074 0.129
(0.015) (0.025) (0.022) (0.047) (0.066) (0.281) (0.339) (0.245) (0.183) (1.536)
Financial openness (Chinn–Ito index) 0.009** 0.002 0.015** –0.022* –0.002 –0.010 –0.028 –0.029 –0.078* –0.384
(0.004) (0.006) (0.006) (0.012) (0.017) (0.070) (0.085) (0.061) (0.046) (0.384)
Constant –0.213** –0.280** –0.198 –0.112 –0.313 1.433 1.163 0.645 –0.808 –4.431
(0.084) (0.139) (0.123) (0.256) (0.378) (2.350) (2.917) (2.143) (1.549) (12.622)
Observations 72 72 72 72 72 54 54 54 54 54
R-squared 0.238 0.205 0.180 0.096 0.139 0.369 0.364 0.362 0.215 0.313
FX = foreign exchange rate, GDP = gross domestic product, M2 = money supply.
Notes: car0, car0to1, car0to2, car0to5, car0to10 are cumulative abnormal returns on event day 0, from event day 0 to 1 day after the event, from event day 0 to 2 days after the event, from event
day 0 to 5 days after the event, and from event day 0 to 10 days after the event, respectively. cav0, cav0to1, cav0to2, cav0to5, cav0to10 are cumulative abnormal trading volumes on event day 0,
from event day 0 to 1 day after the event, from event day 0 to 2 days after the event, from event day 0 to 5 days after the event, and from event day 0 to 10 days after the event, respectively.
Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Source: Authors’ calculation.
 Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations | 19

V. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The price of Bitcoin should be globally uniform if the global market is fully integrated. In practice,
however, the local Bitcoin prices differ due to various market frictions. On the other hand, if the local
Bitcoin markets are segmented, the price of Bitcoin will differ considerably across individual national
markets, driven by respective local market dynamics. Therefore, the effect of local regulations would
be significant and permanent.

Despite regulatory agencies in different jurisdictions actively regulating Bitcoin trading, little is
known about how these regulations affect the global Bitcoin prices. With newly compiled information
on local regulation events and the event study methodology, our empirical evidence shows that local
regulation events drive down Bitcoin cumulative abnormal returns in the local market on the
announcement day and the day after. Two days after the announcement, however, Bitcoin returns
revert to normal patterns. This shows that the effect of local regulation is short-lived and the global
Bitcoin markets are integrated.

Interestingly, local regulation events significantly increase local trading volume in the first 2
days, followed by significantly lower local trading activity, which lasted more than 10 days after the
announcement. This implies that investors sold off in the local market in response to the negative local
regulatory event and migrated elsewhere to evade regulation. Such local trading behavior combined
with the short-lived local regulatory effect on the local price suggests the relatively high degree of
integration in global Bitcoin markets. Cross-border arbitrage opportunities seem to disappear quickly
following the local regulation events. Moreover, in markets with greater financial openness, the long-
run repression effect on trading is mitigated. The results infer that there are ways to evade local
regulations when financial markets are more open.

Overall, our findings suggest that investors consider Bitcoin as a global asset in that the value
of Bitcoin is fundamentally identical across different markets: therefore, the Bitcoin price is globally
determined and cannot be influenced over a longer horizon by individual markets. Our findings also
imply that global Bitcoin markets are highly integrated and local price discrepancies are mostly due to
market frictions particularly associated with the foreign exchange markets, rather than due to
segmentation of local Bitcoin markets.

These findings are consistent with the view that it is a challenge for a regulator in a single
country to regulate the price and trading activity of cryptocurrency determined by investors from the
global network. A longer-term impact on trading volume shows that investors do not necessarily
differentiate where they trade Bitcoin, despite different currency denominations in local markets.
Market frictions associated with physical transactions and local currency denominations would
explain the local price differences, but local regulations do not create abnormal returns that are
beyond the cost of cross-border transactions. National policies cannot help contain market
speculation for global Bitcoin prices. Nevertheless, local regulations can drive speculative investors
out of the local market.

This paper contributes to the literature, first by adding new evidence to the factors
determining Bitcoin prices by exploring the role of regulations in major Bitcoin markets; second, it
helps understand the cross-market price discrepancy by incorporating the role of regulation events in
local and global Bitcoin markets; third, in its policy implications, it shows that regulators need to
collaborate to harmonize regulations across jurisdictions and foster the healthy development of the
20 | ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 605

cryptocurrency market. Local regulation alone is insufficient to contain the high volatility and
speculative attributes of the global Bitcoin markets. Regulatory cooperation would be essential to
better safeguard financial stability and protect investors sometime in the future when and if the growth
of cryptocurrency and market speculation present a risk to broader financial systems.
 REFERENCES

Al-Khazali, Osamah, Bouri Elie, and David Roubaud. 2018. “The Impact of Positive and Negative
Macroeconomic News Surprises: Gold versus Bitcoin.” Economics Bulletin 38 (1): 373–82.

Balcilar, Mehmet, Elie Bouri, Rangan Gupta, and David Roubaud. 2017. “Can Volume Predict Bitcoin
Returns and Volatility? A Quantiles-Based Approach.” Economic Modelling 64: 74–81.

Bernanke, Ben, and Kenneth Kuttner. 2005. “What Explains the Stock Market’s Reaction to Federal
Reserve Policy?” Journal of Finance 60 (3): 1221–57.

Blau, Benjamin M. 2018. “Price Dynamics and Speculative Trading in Bitcoin.” Research in International
Business and Finance 41: 493–99.

Böhme, Rainer, Nicolas Christin, Benjamin Edelman, and Tyler Moore. 2015. “Bitcoin: Economics,
Technology, and Governance.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 29 (2): 213–38.

Bouoiyour, Jamal, and Refk Selmi. 2015. “What Bitcoin Looks Like?” Annals of Economics and Finance
16 (2): 449–92.

Bouri, Elie, Peter Molnár, Georges Azzi, David Roubaud, and Lars Ivar Hagfors. 2017. “On the Hedge
and Safe Haven Properties of Bitcoin: Is It Really More Than A Diversifier?” Finance Research
Letters 20: 192–98.

Bouri, Ellie, Rangan Gupta, Aviral Kumar Tiwari, and David Roubaud. 2017. “Does Bitcoin Hedge
Global Uncertainty? Evidence from Wavelet-Based Quantile-In-Quantile Regressions.”
Finance Research Letters 23: 87–95.

Brandvold, Morten, Peter Molnár, Kristian Vagstad, and Ole Christian Andreas Valstad. 2015. “Price
Discovery on Bitcoin Exchanges.” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions &
Money 36 (C): 18–35.

Canepa, Francesco. 2018. “ECB Wants Banks to Segregate Any Virtual Currency Business.” Reuters. 14
May. https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-ecb-policy-bitcoin/ecb-wants-banks-to-segregate-
any-virtual-currency-business-idUSKCN1IF168.

Ciaian, Pavel, Miroslava Rajcaniova, and d’Artis Kancs. 2016. “The Economics of Bitcoin Price
Formation.” Applied Economics 48 (19): 1799–815.

DeLong, J. Bradford, Andrei Shleifer, Lawrence Summers, and Roberts Waldmann. 1990. “Noise
Trader Risk in Financial Markets.” Journal of Political Economy 98 (4): 703–38.

Chinn, Menzie D., and Hiro Ito. 2006. “What Matters for Financial Development? Capital Controls,
Institutions, and Interactions.” Journal of Development Economics 81 (1): 163–92.

CryptoCompare. https://www.cryptocompare.com/.

Diamond, Douglas, and Robert Verrecchia. 1991. “Disclosure, Liquidity, and the Cost of Capital.”
Journal of Finance 46 (4): 1325–59.
22 | References

Dyhrberg, Anne Haubo. 2016a. “Bitcoin, Gold and the Dollar–A GARCH Volatility Analysis.” Finance
Research Letters 16: 85–92.

————. 2016b. “Hedging Capabilities of Bitcoin. Is It the Virtual Gold?” Finance Research Letters 16:
139–44.

Even-Tov, Omri. 2017. “When Does the Bond Price Reaction to Earnings Announcements Predict
Future Stock Returns?” Journal of Accounting and Economics 64 (1): 167–82.

Flannery, Mark, and Aris A. Protopapadakis. 2002. “Macroeconomic Factors Do Influence Aggregate
Stock Returns.” The Review of Financial Studies 15 (3): 751–82.

Frijns, Bart, Ivan Indriawan, and Alireza Tourani-Rad. 2015. “Macroeconomic News Announcements
and Price Discovery: Evidence from Canadian–U.S. Cross-Listed Firms.” Journal of Empirical
Finance 32: 35–48.

Gao, Pingyang. 2008. “Keynesian Beauty Contest, Accounting Disclosure, and Market Efficiency.”
Journal of Accounting Research 46 (4): 785–807.

Gau, Yin-Feng, and Zhen-Xing Wu. 2017. “Macroeconomic Announcements and Price Discovery in
the Foreign Exchange Market.” Journal of International Money and Finance 79: 232–54.

Gilbert, Thomas, Chiara Scotti, Georg Strasser, and Clara Vega. 2017. “Is the Intrinsic Value of a
Macroeconomic News Announcement Related to Its Asset Price Impact?” Journal of Monetary
Economics 92: 78–95.

Goh, Brenda. 2017. “Beijing Cryptocurrency Exchanges Told to Announce Trading Halt.” Reuters. 15
September. https://in.reuters.com/article/bitcoin-china/beijing-cryptocurrency-exchanges-
told-to-announce-trading-halt-source-idINKCN1BQ1LN.

Grobm, Denis, and Dimitri Vayanos. 2002. “Equilibrium and Welfare in Markets with Financially
Constrained Arbitrageurs.” Journal of Financial Economics 66 (2–3): 361–407.

Hansen, Stephen, and Michael McMahon. 2016. “Shocking Language: Understanding the
Macroeconomic Effects of Central Bank Communication.” Journal of International Economics
99 (S1): S114–S133.

J.P. Morgan Global Research. 2018. Decrypting Cryptocurrencies: Technology, Applications and
Challenges. New York.

Kondor, Péter. 2012. “The More We Know about the Fundamental, the Less We Agree on the Price.”
The Review of Economic Studies 79: 1175–207.

Leuz, Christian, and Peter D. Wysocki. 2007. “Economic Consequences of Financial Reporting and
Disclosure Regulation: What Have We Learned?” Chicago Booth working paper.

Merton, Robert C. 1987. “A Simple Model of Capital Market Equilibrium with Incomplete Information.”
Journal of Finance 42 (3): 483–510.
 References | 23

Nadarajah, Saralees, and Jeffrey Chu. 2017. “On the Inefficiency of Bitcoin.” Economics Letters 150: 6–9.

Pieters, Gina, and Sofia Vivanco. 2017. “Financial Regulations and Price Inconsistencies across Bitcoin
Markets.” Information Economics and Policy 39: 1–14.

Rigobon, Roberto, and Brian Sack. 2004. “The Impact of Monetary Policy on Asset Prices.” Journal of
Monetary Economics 51 (8): 1553–75.

Shleifer, Andrei, and Robert Vishny. 1997. “The Limits of Arbitrage.” Journal of Finance 52 (1): 35–55.

Stavroyiannis, Stavros. 2018. “Diversification Benefits of the Bitcoin.” SSRN Electronic Journal.
10.2139/ssrn.3169818.

Tahrir, Habiba. 2018. “Bitcoin Only ‘Masquerades’ as a Currency: BIS Research Chief.” CCN. 10
August. https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-only-masquerades-as-a-currency-bis-research-chief/.

Yermack, David. 2013. “Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? An Economic Appraisal.” NBER Working Paper No.
19747.

Urquhart, Andrew. 2016. “The Inefficiency of Bitcoin.” Economics Letters 148: 80–82.

————. 2017. “Price Clustering in Bitcoin.” Economics Letters 159: 145–48.

Verrecchia, Robert. 2001. “Essays on Disclosure.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 32 (1–3): 97–
180.

Viglione, Robert. 2015. “Does Governance Have a Role in Pricing? Cross-Country Evidence from
Bitcoin Markets.” http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2666243.

Wagner, Alexander, Richard Zeckhauser, and Alexandre Ziegler. 2018. “Company Stock Price
Reactions to the 2016 Election Shock: Trump, Taxes, and Trade.” Journal of Financial Economics
130 (2): 428–51.
Global Bitcoin Markets and Local Regulations

This paper investigates how the introduction of regulations for local Bitcoin markets will shape prices
and trading activities in six major trading markets that comprise 99% of global trading volume. It finds that
local government regulations only have a short-lived impact on the Bitcoin price but discourage longer-term
trading activities in local markets. The paper also finds that the repressive effect of domestic regulations
on trading activities can be mitigated by domestic financial market openness. It documents consistent
evidence that Bitcoin markets are globally integrated but international cooperation is essential to uphold
market integrity.

About the Asian Development Bank

ADB is committed to achieving a prosperous, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific,
while sustaining its efforts to eradicate extreme poverty. Established in 1966, it is owned by 68 members
—49 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue,
GLOBAL BITCOIN MARKETS
AND LOCAL REGULATIONS
loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance.

Cyn-Young Park, Shu (Grace) Tian, and Bo Zhao

NO. 605 ADB ECONOMICS

January 2020 WORKING PAPER SERIES

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City
1550 Metro Manila, Philippines ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
www.adb.org