# Strait of Hormuz Related Articles

HTX News Center provides the latest articles and in-depth analysis on "Strait of Hormuz", covering market trends, project updates, tech developments, and regulatory policies in the crypto industry.

Arthur Hayes' New Article: It's 'No-Trade Zone' Time

Arthur Hayes argues that the current market is in a "no-trade zone," a period of high uncertainty created by two converging forces: the deflationary shock from AI and the inflationary shock from geopolitics. AI agents are rapidly displacing knowledge workers, eroding their incomes and creditworthiness, which will eventually trigger a deflationary financial crisis in consumer credit-dependent Western economies. Simultaneously, the war in the Middle East, particularly the potential disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, threatens global energy supplies and could force nations to abandon the dollar system. Hayes outlines three main scenarios: 1) A return to normalcy, where the deflationary AI shock remains the primary concern; 2) The "Tehran Toll Booth," where Iran controls the Strait and demands payment in gold or yuan, accelerating the end of dollar hegemony; and 3) "Empire Strikes Back," where the US destroys Iran's capabilities but risks a catastrophic regional war that sends commodity prices soaring. In all but the most extreme scenarios, Hayes posits that the key driver for Bitcoin's price will be the *quantity* of money, not its price (interest rates). He expects that governments, forced to fund wars and stockpile resources, will have to print money, expanding the money supply. This would be bullish for fixed-supply assets like Bitcoin, even if it occurs alongside rising rates. However, he cautions that until this liquidity is explicitly unleashed (e.g., when bond market volatility spikes), the risk/reward for new long positions is poor. His current strategy is to wait for a clear signal of monetary expansion before deploying capital, preferring to hold gold and select crypto assets in the meantime.

marsbit04/20 00:13

Arthur Hayes' New Article: It's 'No-Trade Zone' Time

marsbit04/20 00:13

From Threat to Ceasefire: How Did the U.S. Lose Its Dominance?

From escalating threats to a sudden ceasefire, the US appears to have lost its dominant position in the confrontation with Iran. The conflict has entered a more complex phase where ceasefire and strategic maneuvering coexist. A key shift lies in the reversal of the diplomatic structure: rather than forcing Iranian concessions through military action, the US has been drawn into a negotiation framework based on Tehran’s "Ten-Point Plan." Although Washington has not formally accepted all terms, its de facto recognition of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz marks a significant strategic retreat. This has allowed Iran to regain diplomatic and economic leverage. The outcome is counterintuitive: the conflict has not weakened Iran but instead restored its deterrence capability. Meanwhile, the failure of US military means has undermined the credibility of American threats, forcing any future negotiations to be based on genuine compromise. However, the ceasefire remains fragile, with localized clashes continuing and Israel’s actions adding further uncertainty. The situation remains on the brink of escalation, highly dependent on external variables. More profoundly, a conflict originally intended to pressure or even topple the Iranian regime may instead consolidate its internal power structure. The US has shifted from a dominant party to a negotiator, while Iran has moved from a pressured state to an active player. The confrontation has thus entered a longer-term and more complicated stage.

marsbit04/09 17:03

From Threat to Ceasefire: How Did the U.S. Lose Its Dominance?

marsbit04/09 17:03

Soaring Oil Prices No Longer Drive Up Interest Rates, What Is the Market Afraid Of?

Oil prices surged nearly 60% in March 2026—the steepest monthly rise since Brent crude's inception in 1988—after the Strait of Hormuz closed, cutting off 17.8 million barrels per day of oil flow. Historically, such spikes pushed inflation expectations and bond yields higher, but this time, the 10-year Treasury yield fell sharply from 4.44% to 3.92% in late March, signaling a decoupling. This divergence reflects a market shift: growth risks now outweigh inflation concerns. Bond markets are betting on recession rather than persistent inflation. Historical oil shocks—like those in 1973, 1979, 1990, and 2008—often preceded economic downturns. The sole exception was the 2022 spike, which triggered severe inflation instead. Market expectations pivoted rapidly. Earlier, traders anticipated rate cuts, but by late March, weak consumer confidence and manufacturing data drove bets toward Fed dovishness. Chair Powell emphasized monitoring whether the supply shock is temporary, but the bond market has already priced in recession risks. If stagflation emerges—as during 1973–1982—real assets like gold and commodities may outperform, while stocks and bonds could suffer. The 60/40 portfolio would be particularly vulnerable. Analysts project Brent could average $115–125 in April, with a peak of $150 possible if the Strait remains closed. The bond market’s verdict is clear: fear of recession dominates.

marsbit03/31 03:05

Soaring Oil Prices No Longer Drive Up Interest Rates, What Is the Market Afraid Of?

marsbit03/31 03:05

活动图片