Arthur Hayes Breaks Down Bitcoin’s Fate in Four Iran War Outcomes

Hayes’s core view is that BTC’s price is driven by the quantity of money, not its cost, meaning even rate hikes won’t necessarily hurt it.

Bitcoin’s near-term direction may hinge less on Fed policy than on which four war scenarios play out in the Middle East.

This is according to Maelstrom’s chief investment officer, Arthur Hayes, who published a detailed breakdown this week, arguing that the US-Iran conflict, now almost seven weeks in, has created a trading environment so uncertain his fund “did f*ck all” in the first quarter.

Four Scenarios, One Key Question

Everything in Hayes’s analysis comes down to one question: what happens to ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz? He mapped out four possible outcomes, dismissing a nuclear escalation scenario upfront as “un-investable” and not worth writing about.

The first scenario, which he dubbed “Back to Normal,” is less bullish than it sounds. Here, the war ends, shipping resumes, but the AI-driven deflationary pressure on Western knowledge workers stays in play.

According to Hayes, banks holding customer credit would face a slow-motion solvency problem as white-collar layoffs spread, something he illustrated with a story about a crypto-gaming entrepreneur who, after experimenting with the latest Claude model over Christmas 2025, automated enough of his engineering workflow to cut 50% of his staff within weeks.

Until the Fed moves to address the resulting credit losses, Hayes says BTC could bounce to $80,000 or $90,000, but does not warrant an aggressive buy.

The second scenario centers on Iran restricting access to the Strait of Hormuz and charging a toll. According to Hayes, this could push countries to sell dollar assets, buy gold, and acquire Chinese yuan to settle trades. That shift, if it accelerates, would weigh on US bonds and equities, and Bitcoin, in his view, would likely struggle at first as investors reduce risk exposure, before recovering once central banks step in with fresh liquidity.

You may also like:

A variation of the above scenario came into focus after Trump announced on April 12 that the US Navy would block all ships entering or leaving the Strait. Here, Hayes said markets should focus less on political rhetoric and more on oil futures spreads to gauge whether supply disruptions are real.

The fourth, “The Empire Strikes Back,” has the US military destroying Iran’s ability to block the Strait entirely. The problem, as Hayes sees it, is that Iran has promised to take the rest of the Gulf’s energy production down with it if it goes. That would force central banks everywhere to print money regardless, while raising the probability of a wider conflict.

The Money Quantity Argument

One thread runs through all four scenarios: Hayes believes Bitcoin’s price is determined by the quantity of money in existence, not its cost.

Even if central banks raise rates to fight food and energy inflation, governments will need to borrow heavily for defense and commodity stockpiling. If private buyers won’t absorb that debt, central and commercial banks will, expanding the money supply anyway. That hurts cash-flow-dependent assets while helping Bitcoin and gold.

The cryptocurrency itself was trading around $75,000 at the time of writing, up about 5% over the past seven days and outperforming the broader crypto market’s roughly 4% gain in the same period.