DIGITAL FINANCE UNDER GLOBAL SHOCKS: CRYPTOCURRENCY DEMAND IN TIMES OF CRISES AND SANCTIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62985/j.huit_ojs.vol26.no3E.484Từ khóa:
Cryptocurrency demand, financial crises, economic sanctions.Tóm tắt
This study examines how global shocks reshape cryptocurrency demand, with particular attention to the role of digital finance as an adaptive mechanism under conditions of crisis and financial restriction. Using daily data for Bitcoin and Ethereum from 2018 to 2024, we develop a unified empirical framework that combines matched event-study analysis with dynamic demand modeling to distinguish between immediate market reactions and more persistent adjustment dynamics. The results show that financial crises generate stronger short-run increases in trading volume, turnover, and volatility than sanctions, indicating pronounced speculative responses to market-wide uncertainty. However, these effects fade quickly as information is absorbed. By contrast, sanctions targeting financial infrastructure produce weaker immediate reactions but are associated with more gradual and persistent changes in market conditions, especially through volatility dynamics. Once demand persistence is taken into account, both crisis and sanction shocks have limited direct effects on short-run trading activity, although cryptocurrency demand remains strongly path-dependent over time. Overall, the findings suggest that digital assets serve different functions under different types of global disruption: during crises, they primarily reflect short-lived speculative behavior, whereas under sanctions they increasingly operate as part of a broader process of digital financial adaptation. The study contributes to current debates on digital transformation and financial resilience in the new global economy by showing how cryptocurrencies respond to disruptions in traditional financial market.
Tài liệu tham khảo
[1] D. G. Baur, K. Hong, and A. D. Lee, “Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets?,” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, vol. 54, pp. 177–189, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2017.12.004
[2] S. Corbet, C. Larkin, B. Lucey, A. Meegan, and L. Yarovaya, “Cryptocurrency reaction to FOMC announcements: Evidence of heterogeneity based on blockchain stack position,” Journal of Financial Stability, vol. 46, art. no. 100706, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2019.100706
[3] T. Conlon and R. McGee, “Safe haven or risky hazard? Bitcoin during the COVID-19 bear market,” Finance Research Letters, vol. 35, art. no. 101607, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101607
[4] Z. Umar and M. Gubareva, “A time–frequency analysis of the impact of the Covid-19 induced panic on the volatility of currency and cryptocurrency markets,” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, vol. 28, art. no. 100404, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100404
[5] A. F. Aysan, E. Demir, G. Gozgor, and C. K. M. Lau, “Effects of the geopolitical risks on Bitcoin returns and volatility,” Research in International Business and Finance, vol. 47, pp. 511–518, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.09.011
[6] D. Caldara and M. Iacoviello, “Measuring geopolitical risk,” American Economic Review, vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 1194–1225, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823
[7] R. Khalfaoui, G. Gozgor, and J. W. Goodell, “Impact of Russia–Ukraine war attention on cryptocurrency: Evidence from quantile dependence analysis,” Finance Research Letters, vol. 52, art. no. 103365, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103365
[8] B. Mo, J. Chen, Q. Shi, and Z. Zeng, “Cryptocurrencies as safe havens for geopolitical risk? A quantile analysis approach,” The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, vol. 79, art. no. 102439, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2025.102439
[9] S. Foley, J. R. Karlsen, and T. J. Putniņš, “Sex, drugs, and Bitcoin: How much illegal activity is financed through cryptocurrencies?,” The Review of Financial Studies, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1798–1853, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz015
[10] I. Makarov and A. Schoar, “Cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (DeFi),” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 2022, no. 1, pp. 141–215, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2022.0014
[11] Chainalysis, The 2023 Geography of Cryptocurrency Report. New York, NY, USA: Chainalysis Inc., 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2023-global-crypto-adoption-index/
[12] T. Walther, T. Klein, and E. Bouri, “Exogenous drivers of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency volatility: A mixed data sampling approach to forecasting,” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, vol. 63, art. no. 101133, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2019.101133
[13] I. Yousaf and L. Yarovaya, “Herding behavior in conventional cryptocurrency market, non-fungible tokens, and DeFi assets,” Finance Research Letters, vol. 50, art. no. 103299, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103299
[14] T. King and D. Koutmos, “Herding and feedback trading in cryptocurrency markets,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 300, no. 1, pp. 79–96, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03874-4
[15] L. Laeven and F. Valencia, “Systemic banking crises revisited,” International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, USA, IMF Working Paper 18/206, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484376379.001
[16] A. C. MacKinlay, “Event studies in economics and finance,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 13–39, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2729691
[17] S. P. Kothari and J. B. Warner, “Econometrics of event studies,” in Handbook of Corporate Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance, vol. 1, B. E. Eckbo, Ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 3–36, 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53265-7.50015-9
