比特幣是宏觀的，但並不像你想像的那樣“相關”

我們傾向於使用這兩個術語（宏觀和相關）而不理解它們的含義。 “比特幣是相關的！”我經常在談話中聽到這樣的說法，這是一種輕蔑的說法，表示它根本不是真正的「替代」資產

People tend to use the terms “macro” and “correlated” without fully understanding their meanings.

人們傾向於使用「宏觀」和「相關」這些術語，但沒有完全理解它們的含義。

“Bitcoin is correlated!”

“比特幣是相關的！”

I often hear that statement used to quickly dismiss an idea, like a way of saying that bitcoin isn’t really an “alternative” asset at all, and that all this talk about it being separate from the broader economy is just wishful thinking. But very few who say this have actually looked at the data or considered the reasoning behind that claim (which is understandable – why mess with convenient narratives?). I confess that even I used to think that the surge in the correlation between bitcoin (BTC) and the S&P 500 was because the institutional investors marched into the market in the second half of last year. Now I’m not so sure. The institutions did indeed march in, and bitcoin has to a large extent become a macro asset. But I don’t think that’s driving the correlation data.

我經常聽到這樣的說法用來快速駁回一個想法，就像一種說法，比特幣根本不是真正的「替代」資產，所有關於它與更廣泛的經濟分開的言論都只是一廂情願的想法。但很少有人真正看過數據或考慮過這一說法背後的原因（這是可以理解的——為什麼要搞亂方便的敘述？）。我承認，連我自己也曾經認為比特幣（BTC）與標準普爾500指數之間的相關性飆升是因為機構投資者在去年下半年進入了市場。現在我不太確定了。機構確實介入了，比特幣在很大程度上已經成為一種宏觀資產。但我不認為這會推動相關數據。

Noelle Acheson is the former head of research at CoinDesk and sister company Genesis Trading. This article is excerpted from her Crypto Is Macro Now newsletter, which focuses on the overlap between the shifting crypto and macro landscapes. These opinions are hers, and nothing she writes should be taken as investment advice.

Noelle Acheson 是 CoinDesk 及其姊妹公司 Genesis Trading 的前研究主管。本文摘自她的《加密貨幣現在是宏觀》時事通訊，該通訊重點關注不斷變化的加密貨幣和宏觀景觀之間的重疊。這些觀點是她的，她寫的任何內容都不應被視為投資建議。

Before we start looking at charts that tell a different story, let’s have a think about what correlation actually means, and why we care. In theory, correlation is simply the measure of the degree to which the movements of two series are related. It measures how much two measures vary together, divided by how much they usually vary individually. (There are other types of correlation with different formulas, but that’s too nerdy to get into here – for those who care, I use Pearson on a rolling 60-day window.)

在我們開始查看講述不同故事的圖表之前，讓我們先思考一下相關性的實際含義以及我們為何關心相關性。從理論上講，相關性只是衡量兩個系列的變動的相關程度。它衡量兩個指標共同變化的程度，除以它們通常單獨變化的程度。 （還有其他類型的相關性與不同的公式，但這太書呆子了，不適合在這裡討論——對於那些關心的人，我在滾動的 60 天窗口中使用 Pearson。）

Imagine two assets that are clones of each other. How much they move independently will be exactly the same as how much they move together, so the ratio between the two factors will be 1. A correlation of -1 means they move perfectly in the opposite direction. A correlation of 0 means there is no obvious relationship between the two.

想像一下兩個資產是彼此的克隆。它們獨立移動的量與它們一起移動的量完全相同，因此兩個因素之間的比率將為 1。相關性為0表示兩者之間沒有明顯的關係。

In reality, these “perfect” situations never exist. Correlations are generally a messy amalgam of erratic behavior that indicates strong or weak relationships, used by investors to design relatively robust portfolio strategies and by analysts and storytellers to spot changes in trends.

事實上，這些「完美」的情況永遠不存在。相關性通常是不穩定行為的混亂混合物，顯示關係的強弱，投資者用它來設計相對穩健的投資組合策略，分析師和故事講述者用它來發現趨勢的變化。

Yet, one trap many fall into is to treat correlation as a binary condition. To say something “is” correlated is vague and inaccurate. Highly correlated, negatively correlated – those qualifications make sense, yet even then only at a specific point in time. As we will see, when it comes to market relationships, especially concerning an asset as young as bitcoin, things change fast.

然而，許多人陷入的一個陷阱是將相關性視為二元條件。說某件事「是」相關的是模糊且不準確的。高度相關、負相關－這些資格是有意義的，但即使如此，也只是在特定的時間點。正如我們將看到的，當涉及到市場關係時，尤其是像比特幣這樣年輕的資產，事情變化得很快。

Another frequent trap is to assume that a high or low correlation can explain behavior. To some extent this is true – but more often than not, the relationship is coincidental even if related. Ice cream sales and cases of sunburn are highly correlated, but one does not cause or explain the other.

另一個常見的陷阱是假設高相關性或低相關性可以解釋行為。在某種程度上，這是正確的——但大多數情況下，即使相關，這種關係也是巧合的。冰淇淋銷售和曬傷病例高度相關，但其中一個不會導致或解釋另一個。

Back to bitcoin. As you can see below, the asset used to be pretty much uncorrelated to the S&P 700 (oscillating around 0) even as the institutions marched in, pushing the BTC price to an all-time high in November. But something changed in April 2022.

回到比特幣。如下圖所示，儘管機構紛紛介入，將 BTC 價格推至 11 月歷史新高，但該資產過去與標準普爾 700 指數（在 0 附近波動）幾乎沒有相關性。但 2022 年 4 月，事情發生了變化。

What changed? The overall market mood. Correlation is more about the direction than the size of the price moves (although both matter). The below chart shows that, up until the time that the 60-day BTC-S&P 500 correlation had crossed 0 on the way up (never to return?), the two series had sort of been moving in sync but not really. By April 4, the S&P 500 was down 0.7% on the year while BTC was down 7.5%, and the 60 days prior (the snapshot window for the correlation calculation on any given day) showed different trends for each.

發生了什麼變化？整體市場情緒。相關性更多地與價格變動的方向而非大小有關（儘管兩者都很重要）。下圖顯示，直到 60 天 BTC 與標準普爾 500 指數相關性在上漲過程中越過 0（再也不會返回？）之前，這兩個系列一直在同步變化，但實際上並非如此。截至 4 月 4 日，標準普爾 500 指數年減 0.7%，而 BTC 則下跌 7.5%，而 60 天之前（任意一天相關性計算的快照視窗）顯示出各自不同的趨勢。

What triggered the mood change? Interest rate expectations. Fed funds above 2.50% started to become a remote possibility in terms of market pricing in early April 2022 (when the actual range was 0.25%-0.50%).

是什麼引發了情緒的改變？利率預期。從 2022 年 4 月初的市場定價來看，聯邦基金利率超過 2.50% 的可能性開始變得渺茫（當時實際區間為 0.25%-0.50%）。

This freaked the market out, and the macro investors who piled into the crypto market over the previous nine to 10 months exited in a hurry. They didn’t just exit crypto (a high-risk asset relatively easy to sell), they also exited equities. Prices fell across the board, and the 60-day correlation between bitcoin and the leading stock index rocketed up to an all-time high of 0.72. Macro investors weren’t the only ones de-risking – crypto fund managers were also exiting, expecting a general market slump.

這嚇壞了市場，過去 9 到 10 個月湧入加密貨幣市場的宏觀投資者匆忙退出。他們不僅退出了加密貨幣（一種相對容易出售的高風險資產），還退出了股票。價格全線下跌，比特幣與主要股指的60天相關性飆升至0.72的歷史新高。宏觀投資者並不是唯一降低風險的人——加密貨幣基金經理人也因預期市場普遍暴跌而退出。

The spike in correlation was not because bitcoin was now a “macro asset” – bitcoin’s entrance to general portfolios had been

相關性的飆升並不是因為比特幣現在是一種「宏觀資產」——比特幣進入一般投資組合的時間已經很長了。