Backtesting Bitcoin in a 60/40 Portfolio Across Market Regimes
Lionsoul Global's Gregory Mall backtests bitcoin allocations within a traditional 60/40 portfolio, comparing straight bitcoin, large-cap baskets, and trend-managed sleeves across bull, bear, and sideways markets, revealing that the holding method matters as much as the amount.
Quick Take
Gregory Mall's backtest examines bitcoin in a 60/40 portfolio across different regimes.
Compares straight bitcoin, large-cap basket, and trend-managed sleeve strategies.
The analysis shows holding method can be as important as size of bitcoin allocation.
Market Impact Analysis
NeutralInvestment strategy discussion with no immediate price implications.
Speculation Analysis
Key Takeaways
- Gregory Mall’s backtest evaluates bitcoin’s role in a 60/40 portfolio across bull, bear, and sideways regimes.
- Three holding approaches compared: direct bitcoin, a large-cap crypto basket, and a trend-managed sleeve.
- The research finds that how investors hold bitcoin can be as critical as the percentage allocated.
What Happened
Lionsoul Global’s Gregory Mall published a backtesting analysis of bitcoin’s inclusion in a traditional 60/40 portfolio. The study examined performance across different market regimes—bull, bear, and sideways—and compared three distinct holding strategies. Mall’s work expands on his earlier research about sizing crypto risk, this time drilling into the execution method rather than just the allocation percentage. The findings challenge the notion that getting the allocation right is sufficient; the vehicle through which investors gain bitcoin exposure significantly alters outcomes.
The Numbers
The analysis tested three approaches: holding bitcoin directly, using a large-cap cryptocurrency basket, and employing a trend-managed sleeve that adjusts exposure based on market signals. The backtest spanned multiple market cycles to capture regime-dependent behavior. While specific performance figures weren’t disclosed, the core takeaway is that strategy selection drove meaningful divergence in risk-adjusted returns. In sideways markets, for instance, the trend-managed approach may mitigate drawdowns compared to a static allocation, whereas direct bitcoin might amplify volatility.
Why It Happened
The research was a natural extension of Mall’s prior focus on crypto risk sizing, addressing the practical question of implementation. With institutions increasingly adding digital assets to multi-asset portfolios, the choice of holding method has become a critical decision. Different vehicles—spot, derivatives, or actively managed baskets—carry distinct risk profiles, liquidity constraints, and correlation patterns. Mall’s backtest quantifies these tradeoffs, underscoring that the path to bitcoin exposure matters as much as the destination.
Broader Impact
This analysis could reshape how asset allocators approach crypto integration. Rather than defaulting to a simple spot allocation, managers might consider dynamic or structured products to manage volatility. For the crypto industry, it reinforces the need for robust, regulated investment wrappers that cater to institutional risk preferences. The findings may accelerate the adoption of trend-following and basket strategies in traditional portfolios.
What to Watch Next
- Watch for future research from Mall or others quantifying optimal trend-following parameters for bitcoin within portfolios.
- Monitor institutional product launches offering managed crypto sleeves or basket exposures.
- Observe if 60/40 portfolio construction models formally incorporate dynamic crypto strategies as the bull case regains momentum.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
Always late to trends?
Join for the latest news, insights & more.
Disclaimer: Bytewit is an independent media outlet that delivers news, research, and data.
© 2026 Bytewit. All Rights Reserved. This article is for informational purposes only.
