Plunging 10% Then Surging: Weekend Crude Oil Market Watch

marsbitPublished on 2026-04-20Last updated on 2026-04-20

Abstract

Following a 10% plunge, oil prices surged over the weekend as geopolitical tensions in the Strait of Hormuz escalated dramatically. The initial market optimism, driven by the strait’s brief reopening on Friday, quickly reversed on Saturday when Iran reinstated restrictions and fired on vessels, halting nearly all traffic. In response, oil contracts rose approximately 4.52%, while S&P futures fell nearly 0.8%. U.S. President Trump alternated between diplomatic gestures—sending an envoy for talks—and threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure if no deal was reached. Iran rejected further negotiations, fearing a U.S. attack before the midweek ceasefire deadline. This triggered another spike in oil, surpassing Saturday’s highs, and further pressured equity markets. Crypto-related stocks underperformed significantly. Market optimism is expected to be punished, and the week ahead hinges on whether Iran maintains its refusal to negotiate.

Friday's reopening of the critical Hormuz Strait waterway triggered widespread risk-on sentiment in the markets: U.S. stocks soared, crude oil prices plummeted, U.S. Treasury yields fell, as the belief spread that the worst was over and the disruption to global energy supplies had eased.

However, these moves may prove to be premature.

At 9:20 AM on the 18th (Saturday), reports broke that two oil tankers had been denied passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump immediately applied public pressure: if no deal was reached by Wednesday, the U.S. would continue blockading Iranian ports. At 16:00 that day, Iran announced the re-imposition of restrictions on the Strait and opened fire on vessels attempting to pass—two Indian ships turned back into the Persian Gulf after being shelled, bringing shipping traffic in the Strait to a near standstill.

Traders reacted swiftly on TradeXYZ, with crude oil contracts gaining about 4.52% compared to the weekend closing price, and S&P index contracts falling nearly 0.8%.

Trump then shifted his stance, revealing that envoy Steve Witkoff would travel to Pakistan for talks with the Iranian side on Tuesday, potentially extending the negotiation window until Wednesday.

He then turned around and posted on Truth Social, stating, "The deal we offered is very fair and reasonable, I hope they accept it, because if they don't, the U.S. will destroy every power plant and every bridge in Iran."

Iran was clearly not buying it. At 1:53 AM on the 20th, the Iranian side announced its refusal to participate in a second round of talks; according to Axios, Tehran's assessment was that the U.S. might launch an attack before the Tuesday night ceasefire expiration.

Driven by this news, crude oil surged again, clearing the highs from the 18th, while the S&P index correspondingly broke below the lows from the 18th.

On the individual stock front, three crypto-related stocks significantly underperformed others.

Predictably, the spreading optimism in the market last week will be punished. This week's market movements will largely depend on whether Iran can maintain its no-negotiation stance.

Related Questions

QWhat event initially caused the surge in risk appetite in the markets on Friday?

AThe reopening of the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane.

QWhat specific action did Iran take on Saturday that reversed the initial market optimism?

AIran re-imposed restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz and fired on vessels attempting to pass through, causing shipping to nearly halt.

QHow did crude oil futures react on TradeXYZ following the news of the Strait of Hormuz incident?

ACrude oil contracts rose by approximately 4.52% compared to the weekend's closing price.

QWhat was the content of Donald Trump's threat on Truth Social if Iran did not accept the U.S. deal?

AHe stated that if Iran did not accept the deal, the U.S. would 'destroy every power plant and every bridge in Iran.'

QWhat was the final event that caused crude oil to surge again and erase the previous day's highs?

AIran's announcement that it would refuse to participate in the second round of negotiations, fueled by reports that the U.S. might launch an attack before the ceasefire expired.

Related Reads

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit15m ago

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit15m ago

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit22m ago

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit22m ago

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit35m ago

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit35m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片