Op-ed: The toughest challenges for cryptocurrency lie ahead, not in the rear-view mirror

After a dazzling first decade, bitcoin has become a somewhat troubled teenager. In its heady early days, bitcoin had near-zero correlation with broad equities and commodities, providing the potential for true portfolio diversification.

However, as cryptocurrency investing has become more mainstream, and especially since 2020, bitcoin’s correlation with U.S. equities and bonds has spiked sharply and remained consistently positive.

That might be fine if bitcoin offered spectacular risk-adjusted returns as compensation. Unfortunately, recent empirical evidence shows otherwise: since 2018, bitcoin’s risk-adjusted return has been quite unremarkable compared to equities and bonds.

Cryptocurrencies remain deeply problematic from an environmental, social and governance, or ESG, perspective. That’s true even if the transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake that blockchain-based software platform ethereum is spearheading reduces the massive energy consumption underpinning crypto mining and validation.

Environmentally, bitcoin — which represents more than 40% of current cryptocurrency market cap — will continue to use a validation process where a single transaction requires enough energy to power the average American home for two months.

Socially, cryptocurrencies’ promise of financial inclusiveness also appears overblown, with crypto wealth as unequally distributed as conventional wealth, and with simple phone-based payment services such as M-Pesa in Kenya or Grameen Bank’s international remittance pilots in Bangladesh already providing a digital platform for underbanked households — without the need for a new currency or payment infrastructure.

Even putting aside the recent implosion of the Terra stablecoin, the surviving universe of stablecoins face a potentially existential risk: They could well be made redundant once central bank digital currencies, also called CBDCs, become commonplace. This is because a digital dollar, euro or sterling would provide all the functionality of stablecoins — but with almost no liquidity or credit risk.

In other words, even if stablecoins transformed from their current status as unregulated money market funds (with limited transparency into or auditing of reserves) into regulated digital tokens, they would afford no benefit over CBDCs. Importantly, these central bank digital currencies may not a distant prospect. China has already launched an electronic currency known as the digital yuan, or e-CNY.

The Fed released a long-awaited study on a digital dollar at the start of 2022, and the ECB will share its findings on the viability of a digital euro in 2023.

Finally, a lack of clear and uniform cryptocurrency regulation — both within and across countries — creates tremendous uncertainty for long-term investors. It is still unclear in the U.S., for example, when a cryptocurrency falls under the regulatory framework of a security subject to Securities and Exchange Commission regulations and when it is deemed to be an asset or commodity like bitcoin and ether have claimed.

Indeed, in some countries, cryptocurrencies are facing outright prohibition. China’s abrupt banning of all cryptocurrency trading and mining in 2021 is a prominent example, but by no means the only one. Regulators have also been concerned with the notable and repeated breakdowns in the infrastructure supporting cryptocurrency mining and trading — another area where there remains significant regulatory uncertainty.

Of course, momentum, retail speculation, and the “fear of missing out” may continue to drive up the short-term price of bitcoin, ether and other cryptocurrencies. But there are enough dark clouds on the cryptocurrency horizon that long-term investors may want to observe carefully from the sidelines to better understand fact vs. fiction and true value versus social media hype before deciding how, where and if to invest in the crypto ecosystem.

— By Taimur Hyat, chief operating officer of PGIM.