Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study analyzes transaction-level data from Austrian crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to understand their role in the national economy and their behavior during financial stress events. By utilizing a regulatory registry to identify on-chain addresses, the research reveals that Austrian CASPs facilitate approximately USD 30 billion in transactions, predominantly driven by institutional counterparties, while retail-like flows are more numerous. The findings highlight that stablecoins do not uniformly function as safe havens during crises, as evidenced by differing responses to major shocks like the FTX bankruptcy and Silicon Valley Bank failure, which are obscured in aggregate data.
Stablecoins behave differently under stress, revealing that they are not a uniform safe haven during financial crises, as retail and institutional responses diverge significantly.
Cryptoassets are increasingly entangled with the traditional financial system, and how this activity integrates into national economies and behaves under stress bears on financial stability and the design of public digital money. However, blockchain pseudonymity and the lack of geographic identifiers force existing work to rely on indirect proxies to infer and locate market participants. Here we use a regulatory registry that directly identifies the on-chain addresses of all crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) registered in Austria, reconstructing their on-chain transaction activity across Bitcoin, Ether, USDC, and USDT through May 2025, and separating retail-like from institutionally mediated flows. We find that Austrian CASPs intermediate roughly USD 30 billion with external counterparties and are integrated globally rather than domestically. In value, this activity is dominated by a few institutional counterparties; in number, by retail-like ones. Around three major shocks, the Terra-Luna collapse, the FTX bankruptcy, and the Silicon Valley Bank failure, the two groups respond through different mechanisms, and stablecoins do not act as a uniform safe haven. The clearest case is SVB, where retail-like deposits and institutional withdrawals are consistent with USDC's two-tiered redemption mechanism. These patterns are invisible in aggregate data. Registry-based, transaction-level measurement thus offers a reproducible, cross-jurisdictional basis for monitoring how cryptoasset markets transmit risk.
