Speculative Independence or Monetary Sensitivity? A Structural Cointegration and Causality Analysis of Bitcoin, Growth, and Interest Rates

Öz

This study examines the dynamic linkages among Bitcoin (BTC) prices, U.S. interest rates, and economic growth using quarterly data from 2012Q3 to 2025Q1 within a nonlinear time series framework that incorporates structural breaks. Stationarity is assessed using the Kruse and Fourier unit root tests, while long-run relationships are evaluated with the Augmented-ARDL cointegration method. Long-run coefficients are estimated with CCR, DOLS, and FMOLS. Causal relationships are explored through the Fourier-Toda-Yamamoto test. Results show a significant and positive long-run effect of interest rates on BTC, implying its role as a speculative hedge during monetary tightening. No cointegration is found between BTC and growth, indicating weak macro-financial integration. Additionally, growth Granger-causes interest rate decisions, consistent with Taylor Rule expectations, while no causality is observed from monetary policy(interest rate) to BTC. These findings highlight the decoupling of cryptocurrency markets from traditional financial tools, underscoring the need for adaptable regulatory strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cryptocurrency Markets
• Monetary Policy
• Interest Rate
• Structural Breaks
• Nonlinear Time Series
• Economic Growth

Spekülatif Bağımsızlık mı Yoksa Parasal Duyarlılık mı? Bitcoin, Büyüme ve Faiz Oranlarının Yapısal Eşbütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma, Bitcoin (BTC) fiyatları, ABD faiz oranları ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki dinamik ilişkileri, yapısal kırılmaları içeren doğrusal olmayan zaman serisi çerçevesinde, 2012 üçüncü çeyrek ile 2025 birinci çeyrek arasındaki üçer aylık verilerle incelemektedir. Durağanlık Kruse ve Fourier Kruse birim kök testleriyle değerlendirilirken, uzun dönemli ilişkiler Genişletilmiş ARDL eşbütünleşme yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Uzun dönem katsayıları CCR, DOLS ve FMOLS yöntemleriyle tahmin edilmiştir. Nedensellik ilişkileri ise Fourier-Toda-Yamamoto testiyle araştırılmıştır. Sonuçlar, faiz oranlarının BTC üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif uzun dönemli bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir; bu da BTC’nin parasal sıkılaşma dönemlerinde spekülatif bir korunma aracı olarak işlev gördüğünü ima etmektedir. BTC ile ekonomik büyüme arasında eşbütünleşme bulunmamış, bu da zayıf makro-finansal entegrasyona işaret etmektedir. Ayrıca, ekonomik büyümenin faiz oranı kararlarını Granger nedenselliğiyle etkilediği görülmüş, bu durum Taylor Kuralı beklentileriyle uyumludur. Öte yandan, para politikasından (faiz oranı) BTC’ye doğru herhangi bir nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmemiştir. Bu bulgular, kripto piyasalarının geleneksel para politikası araçlarından ayrıştığını vurgulamakta ve esnek düzenleyici stratejilere ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kripto Para Piyasaları
• Para Politikası
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Faiz Oranı
• Yapısal Kırılmalar
• Doğrusal Olmayan Zaman Serileri

Kaynakça

1. Aboura, S. (2022). A note on the Bitcoin and Fed Funds rate. Empirical Economics, 63(5), 2577–2603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-022-02207-7.
2. Ahmadova, A., Guliyev, T., & Aliyev, K. (2024). The relationship between Bitcoin and Nasdaq, US dollar index and commodities. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 14(1), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.14996.
3. Aydoğan, B., Cayirli, O., & Vardar, G. (2024). Impact of Macroeconomics Factors on Cryptocurrency Pricing: Evidence from Bitcoin and Ethereum Markets. Computational Economics, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-024-10804-0.
4. Aysan, A. F., Demir, E., Gozgor, G., & Lau, C. K. M. (2019). Effects of the geopolitical risks on Bitcoin returns and volatility. Research in International Business and Finance, 47, 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.09.011.
5. Balhadi, A. J. H. (2024). The impact of US monetary policy on bitcoin price in 2022: An analysis of interest rate and cpi announcements (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang).
6. Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. Handbook of the Economics of Finance, 1, 1053–1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0102(03)01027-6.
7. Baur, D. G., Dimpfl, T., & Kuck, K. (2018). Bitcoin, gold and the US dollar – A replication and extension. Finance Research Letters, 25, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.10.012.
8. Benigno, G., & Rosa, C. (2023). The Bitcoin–macro disconnect (Staff Report No. 1052). Federal Reserve Bank of New York. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4373434.

9. Bouri, E., Shahzad, S. J. H., & Roubaud, D. (2020). Cryptocurrencies as hedges and safe-havens for US equity sectors. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 75, 294-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2019.05.001.
10. Corbet, S., Lucey, B., & Yarovaya, L. (2018). Datestamping the Bitcoin and Ethereum bubbles. Finance Research Letters, 26, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.12.006.
11. Di Febo, E., Ortolano, A., Foglia, M., Leone, M., & Angelini, E. (2021). From Bitcoin to carbon allowances: An asymmetric extreme risk spillover. Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113384.
12. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517.
13. Dirican, C., & Canoz, I. (2017). The cointegration relationship between Bitcoin prices and major world stock indices: An analysis with ARDL model approach. Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting, 4(4), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.748.
14. Dogan, E., Majeed, M. T., & Luni, T. (2022). Are clean energy and carbon emission allowances caused by Bitcoin? A novel time-varying method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 347, 131089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131089.
15. Enders, W. (2015). Applied econometric time series. 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons.
16. Enders, Walter (2015). Applied econometric time series.“4th ed”. New York (US): University of Alabama.
17. Forbes. (2024, March 31). What will happen to bitcoin prices if the Fed lowers interest rates? Retrieved June 29, 2025 from
18. Guizani, S., & Kahloul Nafti, I. (2019). An investigation with ARDL model. Procedia Computer Science, 164, 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.12.177.
19. Güriş, B. (2019). A new nonlinear unit root test with Fourier function. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, 48(12), 3056–3062. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2018.1473591.
20. Gürsoy, S., Jóźwik, B., Dogan, M., Zeren, F., & Gulcan, N. (2024). Impact of climate policy uncertainty, clean energy index, and carbon emission allowance prices on Bitcoin returns. Sustainability, 16(9), 3822. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093822.
21. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/03/31/what-will-happen-to-bitcoin-prices-if-the-fed-lowers-interest-rates/
22. https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/special-reports/are-crypto-markets-correlated-with-macroeconomic-factors
23. Jareño, F., González, M. de la O., López, R., & Ramos, A. R. (2021). Cryptocurrencies and oil price shocks: A NARDL analysis in the COVID-19 pandemic. Resources Policy, 74, 102281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102281.
24. Jin, L. J. (2015). A speculative asset pricing model of financial instability. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2524762.
25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99–127). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417358_0006.
26. Karau, S. (2023). Monetary policy and Bitcoin. Journal of International Money and Finance, 137, 102880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2023.102880.
27. Köse, N., & Ünal, E. (2023). The asymmetric effects of the interest rate on the bitcoin price. Finance a Uver: Czech Journal of Economics & Finance, 73(2). https://doi.org/10.32065/CJEF.2023.02.04.
28. Kristoufek L (2015) What Are the Main Drivers of the Bitcoin Price? Evidence from Wavelet Coherence Analysis. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0123923. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123923
29. Kruse, R. (2011). A new unit root test against ESTAR based on a class of modified statistics. Statistical Papers, 52, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-009-0204-1.
30. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1–3), 159–178. doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
31. Liu, Y., & Tsyvinski, A. (2021). Risks and returns of cryptocurrency. The Review of Financial Studies, 34(6), 2689–2727. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa113.
32. McNown, R., Sam, C. Y., & Goh, S. K. (2018). Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration. Applied Economics, 50(13), 1509–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1366643.
33. Mishkin, F. S. (1995). Symposium on the monetary transmission mechanism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.3.
34. Mishkin, F. S. (2001). The transmission mechanism and the role of asset prices in monetary policy (NBER Working Paper No. 8617). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w8617.
35. Nazlioglu, S., Gormus, N. A., & Soytas, U. (2016). Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis. Energy economics, 60, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.009.
36. Özer, M., Kamisli, S., Temizel, F., & Kamisli, M. (2022). Are COVID-19-related economic supports one of the drivers of surge in bitcoin market? Evidence from linear and non-linear causality tests. Mathematics, 11(1), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11010196.
37. Park, J. Y. (1992). Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 119-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951679.
38. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y, Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of applied econometrics, 16 (3), 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616.
39. Phillips, P. C., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The review of economic studies, 57(1), 99-125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297545.
40. S&P Global. (2025). Are crypto markets correlated with macroeconomic factors? Retrieved June 29, 2025 from
41. Sam, C. Y., McNown, R., & Goh, S. K. (2019). An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration. Economic Modelling, 80, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.001.
42. Sarker, P. K., & Wang, L. (2022). Co-movement and Granger causality between Bitcoin and M2, inflation and economic policy uncertainty: Evidence from the UK and Japan. Heliyon, 8(10), e11178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11178.
43. Shahzad, S. J. H., Bouri, E., Roubaud, D., & Kristoufek, L. (2020). Safe haven, hedge and diversification for G7 stock markets: Gold versus bitcoin. Economic Modelling, 87, 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.07.023.
44. Shaikh, I. (2020). Policy uncertainty and Bitcoin returns. Borsa Istanbul Review, 20(3), 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2020.02.003.
45. Shiller, R. J. (2014). Speculative asset prices. American Economic Review, 104(6), 1486–1517. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.6.1486.
46. Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica, 61(4), 783–820. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951763.
47. Taylor, J. B. (1993, December). Discretion versus policy rules in practice. In Carnegie-Rochester conference series on public policy, 39,195-214. North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2231(93)90009-L.
48. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8.
49. Zhu, Y., Dickinson, D., & Li, J. (2017). Analysis on the influence factors of Bitcoin’s price based on VEC model. Financial Innovation, 3(1), 3.