Original Video Title: Arthur Hayes: Bitcoin's Final Dump Before The Pump

Original Video Source: Kyle Chasse crypto

Original Compilation: Deep潮 TechFlow

Key Summary

Arthur Hayes sold off his largest crypto positions—HYPE, NEAR, Worldcoin, and Zcash. The reasons are unrelated to crypto itself but stem from a macro chain of reasoning involving oil prices, the Iran war, Trump’s midterm election strategies, and the AI bubble burst.

He believes Trump might reverse his stance and attack the AI industry to salvage midterm election disadvantages. Once the AI bubble peaks, the crypto market won’t be immune; SpaceX’s IPO with a $1.8 trillion valuation and a 100x sales ratio, in his view, is a liquidity time bomb waiting to explode.

Highlights of Key Views

Why Liquidate Everything

· "Voters don’t like high oil prices, they don’t like inflation driven by energy."

· "The higher oil prices go, the more people want to negotiate. When oil prices drop suddenly, no one wants to reach an agreement anymore."

Trump Turns Against AI

· "If he wants to pull a rabbit out of his hat, the only issue that can flip is AI—temporarily taking the Democratic microphone, claiming to protect Americans from AI, and everyone will forget that it’s actually the Republicans who financed all this."

· "The most destructive narratives around AI are taxation and regulation."

New Investment Portfolio Allocation

· "Most of my liquid assets are in government bonds and energy stocks."

· "I’m not saying AI won’t continue to grow, but the market’s willingness to pay forward multiples for this growth will decline, so the prices of these assets will fall."

Mathematics of the AI Capital Expenditure Bubble

· "I trade based on gut feeling and intuition, not analysis. I feel we’re at some stage of the AI bubble—I’m not sure which stage."

· "You can’t pay 100x sales for SpaceX or any AI company when earnings and capital expenditure are both decelerating. The key is how fast growth is, what the rate of change is, and your perception of that rate."

· "When you invest in AI, you’re not investing in profits but in data center capital expenditures—you’re betting on the second derivative, the acceleration or deceleration of trends. If trends accelerate, you’re willing to pay infinite multiples for future revenue; if they decelerate, you’re not."

· "We’re already at $800 billion in capital expenditure by 2026. By 2027, this second derivative will start to slow—there’s no way to pay 100x sales for SpaceX or any AI firm when both profits and expenditures are decelerating."

· "There will always be conflicts between capital and labor, voluntary or forced, and at some point, some agreement will be reached."

Why Bitcoin Underperformed AI

· "Since ChatGPT’s commercialization, US M2 has increased by about $1.5 trillion, but at the same time, AI and AI-related companies have issued about $1.5 trillion in debt—$1.3 trillion of which is concentrated between 2025 and 2026. AI has siphoned off all excess liquidity."

· "When the bubble bursts, all correlations turn to 1—AI declines, Bitcoin declines, all assets fall together until the dust settles, and then certain assets start to outperform."

· "In the next six months, due to rising oil prices and US political factors, the AI complex will undergo a major correction, and Bitcoin won’t be immune."

SpaceX IPO Trap

· "Market expectations aren’t just for normal trading; they expect a 50% surge, an outrageous increase, to show that the market still believes in AI, that they picked the right star company, and it will continue soaring."

· "With a valuation of around $1.8 trillion, SpaceX will become the seventh-largest company globally. Its valuation approaches 100x sales. It’s utterly absurd—being the seventh-largest company without proving anything."

· "This is a classic crypto scam pattern: low float, fully diluted high valuation, 4-5% circulating supply, rising to nearly 25% by September—insiders will keep selling from July to October."

Evidence of Anti-AI Strategies

· "I asked Perplexity AI to search all competitive districts for any info on restrictions or local opposition to data center construction. The result: if Trump moves against AI, he could flip enough seats to win the House."

· "Trump has no ideology; he only cares about winning. In 2020, he sent checks to every American—massive direct money transfers. No income screening, lots of fraud, rich and poor got checks. So don’t think he won’t turn to naked populism."

Federal Reserve, Waller, and Rate Risks

· "Oil prices are higher and won’t fall soon. The 2-year Treasury yield is about 60 basis points above the effective federal funds rate. The market is telling the Fed: you need to hike rates."

· "The bubble fears rising interest rates; higher capital costs always push people away from this casino."

· "I see no room for Waller to cut rates now. If rate cut expectations are one of the pillars supporting optimism about the AI bubble, then you should question that assumption."

Crypto Catalysts and Re-entry Timing

· "I don’t see much sign of money printing, and even if there is, it’s directly flowing into AI development."

· "If we return to a high-growth, low-inflation perfect economy, what would you buy? Nvidia or Bitcoin? Of course, Nvidia—think Samsung—because they’ve surged 50x in two years. Would you buy Bitcoin? Of course not."

· "That’s the moment crypto can outperform—AI has been credit-busted. Not that it’s gone, but it’s no longer soaring like before, so investors need to trade elsewhere. I hope that elsewhere is crypto, and liquidity will flow back into crypto."

Quick Q&A

· "Will Bitcoin be above $100k by year-end or below?—Below."

· "Today, if I invest $1 million in any asset—Bitcoin, HYPE, short-term bonds, gold?—ExxonMobil."

Why Liquidate Everything

Host Kyle Chasse: Arthur, welcome back. Recently, you sold all your Zcash, HYPE, NEAR. Everyone’s criticizing you for exiting the scam, pumping and dumping. Why did you sell everything? What’s really going on?

Arthur Hayes: I just published an article called "Reality Check," about 5,000 words, outlining the points I’ll briefly discuss in the podcast in a few minutes. If you want a deeper understanding of my reasoning, I highly recommend reading it on my Substack. But essentially, it’s about a reflexive interaction between oil prices and Trump’s midterm election rhetoric—he needs to help the Republicans beat the Democrats in November and hold Congress. The current Iran war situation is critical—whether you like it or not, it’s there, right here, now.

So Trump and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard need to reach some agreement to end this conflict. Both sides face a real constraint: oil prices determine how angry different regions are at each other. Trump must worry domestically—voters dislike high oil prices, they dislike inflation driven by energy.

Iran faces pressure from China and other developing countries—"What are you doing? We need this oil, these goods passing through the Strait of Hormuz. I know the US attacked you, but find a way to fix it." So, the higher oil prices go, the more negotiations happen. When prices drop suddenly, no one wants to agree anymore. We’ve been swinging back and forth in this tug-of-war for about three months, or as long as the war has lasted.

As this process unfolds, we’re gradually depleting commercial and national reserves of oil and other hydrocarbons. Any energy analyst’s chart shows similar conclusions—pre-war inventories were ample, so people believed supply exceeded demand, keeping prices relatively low.

But now we’re consuming these surpluses at an accelerating rate. At some point, we’ll hit a level—I don’t know how many billion barrels—that triggers a sharp change. Every analyst has their own number and forecast date. Once that date passes, things could turn very bad very quickly. The only way to restore market balance is to rapidly push oil prices higher.

This is the worst-case scenario—Trump and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fail to reach an agreement. By October, the Strait remains substantially blocked, only 25-30% of shipping volume passes, which is far from enough. A more likely scenario is some agreement in a month or two, easing the Strait’s shipping restrictions.

But then everyone needs to rebuild inventories—both national and commercial—and likely will stockpile even more, having just experienced the consequences of Trump and Iranian generals’ decisions on their countries’ supplies.

So you’d think: "I need to stockpile more oil, natural gas, helium—everything needed for a modern economy." This will boost demand, raising prices over the next few months, though perhaps not to catastrophic levels. Still, oil, gas, and commodities prices will be higher than today.

Oil, War, and Election Linkage

Arthur Hayes: Following this logic, Trump and his Republican allies’ midterm (November 2026) is likely to be a disaster for the House. Check Polymarket—probability of Democrats retaking control is now 82%.

Why? Clearly, Trump is being hammered on the cost of living. People see inflation as terrible and worsening. In voters’ eyes, it’s the Democrats in the White House, and the conflict and war are their fault. This black mark is why they’re expected to lose badly.

The problem is, there’s little you can do about inflation—policy effects lag long, and supply chains are only now digesting what happened three or four months ago.

I don’t think Trump can turn the inflation narrative much. People at the pump can see and feel it—there’s no magic trick to make inflation disappear; it’s there every time you fill up. So what other issues can shake the entire US political spectrum? AI data centers—regulation, taxes, all that.

I think Democrats are crafting a winning message: no more data centers, taxing AI giants, regulating AI. Because not only the poor will lose jobs, but the wealthy’s jobs will be replaced by AI—at least, that’s the fear.

Trump Turns Against AI

Arthur Hayes: If the opposition can exploit this fear, they gain two powerful messages: one, that the war and inflation are caused by Republicans; two, that the AI buildout is largely backed by Republican politicians. So my theory is, if Trump wants to pull a rabbit out of his hat, the only issue he can flip is AI.

He can take the Democratic microphone and say: "We need to scrutinize data centers, establish a national AI dividend, tax them." That’s Trump-style rhetoric. He can say a lot, but whether he acts after November is another matter.

I believe this is their only chance to win—portray themselves as protecting Americans from AI, and then Americans will forget that it’s actually the Republicans who financed all this, because people are forgetful. So I see this as the main risk.

And Trump’s willingness to attack AI depends purely on oil prices, which are a reflexive relationship with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The longer this war drags on without resolution, the more we accumulate future pressures on commodities that could spike prices. Trump might then use AI as a tool to try to win the election, at least helping Republicans hold the House.

Clearly, the most destructive narratives around AI are taxation and regulation. We’ve already seen in Korea—when a politician announced a national AI tax, Cosby’s stock immediately hit the limit down.

So I think if this rhetoric is adopted by the ruling party, especially openly by Trump, we’ll see the AI bubble peak, at least in the coming months until the election, dragging the crypto market down with it. That’s the core argument. I really don’t want to think about this anymore, so last week I liquidated my entire portfolio.

New Portfolio Allocation

Host Kyle Chasse: What are most of your liquid assets in now—cash or bonds?

Arthur Hayes: Government bonds and energy stocks.

Host Kyle Chasse: Do you still think energy can hold up if the AI bubble bursts?

Arthur Hayes: We still need oil—doesn’t matter if you like it or not. People need oil; it fuels civilization. And I’m not saying AI won’t keep growing, but the willingness to pay forward multiples for that growth will decline, so these assets’ prices will fall.

That doesn’t mean their profits won’t be good; just that we expected them to be even better, and they’re not, so we sold. That’s the logic.

Math of the AI Capital Expenditure Bubble

Arthur Hayes: I trade based on gut feeling and intuition, not analysis. I feel we’re at some stage of the AI bubble—I’m not sure which. Over the weekend, I listened to Marco Papovich’s podcast; he’s a strategist at BCA with a great YouTube channel called Geopolitical Cousins. I highly recommend subscribing.

He’s expressed many views in the podcast and in articles—one key point: when you invest in AI, you’re not investing in profits but in data center capital expenditures.

I often forget this: you’re betting on the second derivative, the acceleration or deceleration of trends. If the trend accelerates, you’re willing to pay infinite multiples for future revenue; if it decelerates, you’re not.

He recently posted a chart showing the second derivative of capital expenditure growth—bigger numbers mean faster acceleration. We hit $800 billion in 2026, and he predicts the second derivative will slow from 2027. You can’t pay 100x sales for SpaceX or any AI company when both profits and expenditures are decelerating.

Even if revenues keep growing, the focus isn’t there—it's on how fast growth is, the rate of change, and your perception of that change. Mathematically, based on the law of large numbers, in the near future, the growth rate of capital expenditure can’t be as fast as from 2023 to 2026—that’s physically impossible.

So, when will the market discount this future and say, "I won’t pay 50, 60, 70 times earnings for these AI or supply chain stocks anymore"? When will it realize that opposition parties worldwide are exploiting this sentiment—"Screw data center inflation, screw AI replacing my job"?

Why are only Elon, Sam Altman, Zuckerberg, and about fifteen others becoming trillionaires, privatizing all human knowledge, and what about my share?

This isn’t unique to the US; globally, people are asking: if AI is trained on human interaction data, and they use all this public and private data legally or illegally, why should they profit exclusively? For those with enough assets involved in these equity stories, it’s a legitimate question.

Eventually, the market will see a rebound. There will always be conflicts between capital and labor—voluntary or forced—and some agreement will be reached. If you hold those assets when that happens, you’ll likely get crushed. These thoughts have been swirling in my mind. I sat down, tried to figure out what’s really happening, and spent a morning liquidating.

Why Bitcoin Underperformed AI

Host Kyle Chasse: Where do you think the market will go from now to year-end?

Arthur Hayes: To answer that, I’ve been pondering another question: why hasn’t Bitcoin risen higher since November 2022? I’ve repeatedly said on your show and elsewhere: it all depends on liquidity. If future liquidity increases, Bitcoin should go up.

But now, it’s clear that’s wrong. Because from the day ChatGPT was commercialized—November 30, 2022—Bitcoin has indeed risen, but AI stocks like Nvidia have surged much more. The peak for Bitcoin was last October at $125k. So, all the liquidity created during this period—trillions of dollars—should have benefited Bitcoin, yet it didn’t reach $500k or $1 million. Why did AI outperform?

I usually don’t look at where money flows; I just say "more money, so Bitcoin should rise." That’s lazy thinking—used to work, but not this time. So I revisited my model, asked myself: what am I missing? The answer: we all believe AI could be one of the most transformative technologies ever, with massive capital expenditure—trillions.

But how much debt has AI absorbed during this time? Has AI essentially crowded out all other risk assets, pre-absorbing excess liquidity?

At a high level, I don’t usually use M2 because I think it’s too coarse and imprecise, but let’s use it as an example.

Since ChatGPT, US M2 has increased by at least $1.5 trillion. I also asked Perplexity AI: how much debt has been issued to AI and related companies? The estimate is about $1.5 trillion, with $1.3 trillion concentrated between 2025 and 2026.

In other words, although the AI frenzy ignited at the end of 2022, the debt pumping in capital markets is actually skewed toward the later stage, only really ramping up recently.

My theory is, Bitcoin rebounded from lows because a lot of liquidity was created, and AI hadn’t yet consumed it all by 2025. Bitcoin had room to benefit from this liquidity wave.

From 2022 to mid-2025, factors like reverse repos declined, helping this. But if you look at AI companies’ capital expenditure and loan charts, the real volume started in 2025, especially 2026. That’s also when Bitcoin struggled—peaking last October, now down 50-60%. So, if all liquidity flows into AI and that continues, Bitcoin’s struggle makes sense.

If an AI bubble correction or burst occurs, investors won’t suddenly pour huge money into Bitcoin; they’ll sell AI and Bitcoin, sell everything. When the bubble bursts, all assets correlate at 1—falling together until the dust settles, then some assets start to outperform.

Therefore, if I believe that in the next six months, due to rising oil prices and US political factors, the AI complex will undergo a major correction, Bitcoin won’t be immune.

It should perform better after the correction, but you must first go through that decline. That’s why I currently see no environment very favorable for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

And clearly, my positions in NEAR, HYPE, Worldcoin, and Zcash have been very profitable—I sold at a profit. I want to pocket those gains and watch from the sidelines. These assets might continue rising, but given my risk model, I’m uncomfortable with the current holdings, the foreseeable unknown risks, and how they might evolve. That’s why I exited.

SpaceX IPO Trap

Host Kyle Chasse: Another thing I’ve been thinking about: the S&P 500 is rising, but most stocks are actually falling; the index is driven by a few tech giants. Plus, we’re about to see new IPOs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX, potentially adding over $4 trillion in market cap. Do you think these will drain liquidity from the market? What’s your view on these IPOs?

Arthur Hayes: I think it’s hard for these to perform well because market expectations aren’t just for normal trading; they expect a 50% surge, an outrageous jump, to show that the market still believes in AI, that they picked the right star company, and it will keep soaring.

SpaceX’s valuation around $1.8 trillion will make it the seventh-largest company globally. For it to rise another 50%, it would need to surpass Amazon. If you read its S-1, you’ll see SpaceX’s valuation approaches 100x sales. That’s utterly absurd—being the seventh-largest company without proven earnings.

Yes, it’s a great idea—space data centers, policy issues around ground data centers. I follow a Substack called Semi Analysis, which does deep research on semiconductors and AI.

They wrote an article comparing the costs of space data centers versus ground data centers. The conclusion: operating a data center in space costs four times more than on Earth. Not only that, but there aren’t enough chips to realize Elon’s vision, and building data centers on the ground is still feasible. It’s not as easy as you think, but it’s four times cheaper, so you’d choose ground data centers until you can’t anymore.

According to the most optimistic estimates, space data centers won’t reach cost parity with ground ones for at least the next decade.

So the current reality is: the entire network of capital is willing to pay 100x sales for a product that’s four times more expensive and still unprofitable, with rocket explosions and no real revenue in sight. That’s a classic crypto scam pattern: low float, fully diluted high valuation, 4-5% circulating supply, rising to nearly 25% by September—insiders will keep selling from July to October.

And yet, it’s the seventh-largest company globally, with nothing proven in the data center argument. Except for satellite internet and similar ventures, which are doing well, that’s not why you buy SpaceX.

I think it’s unlikely to meet market expectations. Not necessarily that it will fall, but even a 10% rise will be met with "that’s not enough, I want 50%, 60%, 70%." That will make investors question: as insiders sell more, should I still buy Anthropic or OpenAI’s IPO in September?

Pricing it so high creates an almost impossible-to-beat scenario. If it’s a $100 billion company, it can double or triple, and people will say AI is real, SpaceX’s rise is because they issued at a lower valuation.

But now, it’s about extracting maximum—$1.8 trillion. Beating Nvidia? Very hard. Sorry Elon, you can’t beat Jensen. I don’t even know who the current CEO of Amazon is, but you can’t beat these companies. They have real revenue, are operational, and have proven their claims. SpaceX’s current valuation is mostly on paper.

Maybe time will prove otherwise, but would you really push a $1.8 trillion stock up 50%? That’s extremely difficult. That’s why I think this will be a major event shaking people’s faith in the AI narrative—its scale makes it almost impossible to rise.

Host Kyle Chasse: How do you think liquidity will flow during these IPOs? Will there be a massive shift of funds? Or will it be like Elon—who sells first, wins best?

Arthur Hayes: The first. People will get excited, liquidity will be pulled from other assets.

If SpaceX underperforms, I think Anthropic and OpenAI will face huge pressure to lower their IPO prices. If they are forced to cut valuations or reduce fundraising before listing, it sets a dangerous precedent—like the market is cutting its own throat, softening expectations for AI’s bubble.

Suddenly, expectations will be lowered, and people will hesitate: why buy Anthropic or OpenAI after SpaceX’s valuation drops? Why reduce issuance size? All these changes could cool investor enthusiasm. Funds might be pulled from elsewhere, or people might simply cool on the AI bull story, leading to a chain reaction of price declines.

Evidence of Anti-AI Strategies

Host Kyle Chasse: Returning to Trump’s anti-AI narrative—some might argue that all those AI giants helped him get elected, or at least influenced him significantly. We know he’s had many private dinners and discussions with them—they’re his major donors and supporters, and he’s publicly praised AI.

I haven’t tracked how many openly oppose AI, but I know most people don’t have warm feelings about it. It could be a clever pivot. But I’ve never seen anyone suggest it’s a bold prediction. How confident are you? Any signs he might go this route?

Arthur Hayes: I used Perplexity AI and asked: Polymarket says Republicans will lose—are there paths to victory? People need to understand the underlying political logic: why does Trump desperately want to keep the House in midterms?

It’s not about high ideals; it’s purely political self-preservation. If Democrats take the House, he and his family will face endless subpoenas. Democrats will pursue him relentlessly. He’ll have no chance to create the legacy he envisions for a second term. That’s why he wants to win.

I also believe Trump has no ideology; he only cares about winning. During the 2020 pandemic, he provided the largest fiscal transfers—checks to everyone. No income screening, lots of fraud, rich and poor got checks. So don’t think he won’t turn to naked populism—because public opinion is against AI.

AI has generated negative sentiment among both Republican and Democratic voters. So I asked AI: assuming these seat predictions are correct, excluding those safe seats due to redistricting, they still need to win some more to hold the House.

So I asked: are there local laws banning data center construction or restricting their impact? Search all these districts. The result: if Trump moves against AI, he could flip enough seats to win the House, because local residents already oppose data centers and have taken action.

And again, this is just rhetoric—Trump doesn’t need to do anything. He can call Jensen and the AI giants and say: "Listen, I’ll crack down hard in the next four months, don’t panic. Come November, none of this will happen." That’s how he operates.

He attacks, stock prices fall, some lose money. Look at his tariffs—his hedge fund buddies lost billions trying to reshape US trade infrastructure. He pulled back at the last moment, but he proved he’s willing to try.

So I don’t see why his political strategists wouldn’t use anti-AI rhetoric if it gains votes—even if it’s just talk. The only victims are the stock market and wealthy investors losing money. No legislation needed—just words.

After November, it’s back to "We must win the AI race against China."

So I think, given the inflation narrative is now unchangeable, this is a viable path for Republicans to win. I don’t care if oil drops another 50%; gasoline prices might fall a bit, but supply chain issues are already in motion. By October, supermarket prices will be higher, and Trump is almost powerless.

Fed, Waller, and Rate Risks

Host Kyle Chasse: Let’s talk about Waller. I know there’s little certainty now, as his first FOMC meeting is next week. Based on his previous statements and the upcoming midterms, what do you think his policy stance will be?

Arthur Hayes: I don’t remember his last speech exactly, but one narrative is: you can see through commodity inflation during wartime, then believe AI productivity miracles will bring non-inflationary growth, so cut rates. I think that’s what the market wants to believe about Waller.

Unfortunate reality: oil prices are higher and won’t fall soon. The 2-year Treasury yield is about 60 basis points above the effective federal funds rate. The market is telling the Fed: you need to hike. That’s the signal the market is sending—whether they do it or not, I don’t know.

I also think Trump might privately ease his obsession with rate cuts. If he wants to do something about affordability, the worst thing he could do is have the Fed cut rates when inflation is at 3.5-4%. If he cares about winning midterms on affordability, rate cuts would hurt him.

So I believe, considering market positioning, Waller will find it very difficult to cut rates. My baseline is no change, with the question being how to phrase it—hawkish or dovish? If hawkish, it signals inflation pressures are building, and the Fed might need to act. The market will price that in: "They will hike at some point."

And the bubble fears rising rates; higher capital costs always push people away from this casino.

So I think the chance of rate cuts is very low—most likely, rates stay steady, and it’s all about wording.

The Fed’s limited options to support the bubble: oil prices have already pushed the 2-year yield above the effective federal funds rate, with soaring oil and widening spreads. Yields are rising. I see no room for Waller to cut rates now. If rate cut expectations support optimism about the AI bubble, then you should question that assumption.

Crypto Catalysts and Re-entry Timing

Host Kyle Chasse: Between now and the midterms, do you think anything could trigger a short-term rally? Not market manipulation, but narratives or events that might give a bounce?

Arthur Hayes: Maybe people believe MicroStrategy will keep pumping, which could reignite some bullish sentiment. But I see no signs of money printing, and even if there is, it’s flowing into AI development directly. So I don’t see a major catalyst to lift crypto out of its slump or outperform AI.

Because if we return to a high-growth, low-inflation environment, what would you buy? Nvidia or Bitcoin? Of course, Nvidia—think Samsung—because they surged 50x in two years. Would you buy Bitcoin? Of course not. That’s the problem: AI has performed too well.

If the environment remains the same and these assets keep doing well, why choose crypto? You’d keep betting on capital expenditure growing at 100% annually, constantly buying these companies. Do you think that’s sustainable?

And that’s the current market belief.

But if I were an institutional investor, and clients said, "Nasdaq up 50%, why only 10% for you?"—"Because I’m hedging, I bought volatility,"—clients would say, "Why give my money to a fund that only gained 10% instead of one that gained 50%?" That’s the logic—everyone wants maximum returns, and if you don’t participate, you’re missing out.

Host Kyle Chasse: When will you consider re-entering? What could convince you to come back?

Arthur Hayes: If by fall, oil prices stay moderate, no big surge, and Trump doesn’t turn against AI giants, I might re-enter, look for value.

But all that hinges on a strict precondition—the epic IPOs of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI must open strongly, even explosively, to match the largest IPOs in history. If reality doesn’t meet expectations, we’re in trouble.

Host Kyle Chasse: Is there a way to tell when the crypto market might enter the next bull run?

Arthur Hayes: We need more money printing, and it must not all flow into AI. When that happens, I don’t know. But I believe it’s inevitable—governments will print money to fix their problems.

Is there a way to time this or identify catalysts? If the AI bubble bursts, some institutions might fail, and then you get a bailout.

When? I don’t know. But that’s the moment crypto can outperform—AI is credit-busted. Not that it’s gone, but it’s no longer soaring, so investors will look elsewhere. I hope that elsewhere is crypto, and liquidity will flow back.

I firmly believe the answer is always money printing—timing is the question. Bitcoin has been the best-performing asset over the past 15 years. But unfortunately, many entered at different prices. If you only bought during the ETF era, on average, you’re down. Everything depends on path dependency and timing. Just because you entered six months ago doesn’t mean Bitcoin should go up for you. That’s a painful lesson many need to learn.

Quick Q&A

Host Kyle Chasse: Final quick questions. First, will Bitcoin be above $100k by year-end or below?

Arthur Hayes: Below.

Host Kyle Chasse: When will the altcoin season come?

Arthur Hayes: We just went through an altcoin season—four assets. People made a lot of money on HYPE and others. I think it’s over, maybe it’ll come again, but I don’t know.

Host Kyle Chasse: Do you think you’ll buy HYPE back before year-end?

Arthur Hayes: Yes.

Host Kyle Chasse: If today you invest $1 million in assets—Bitcoin, HYPE, short-term bonds, gold—what would you choose?

Arthur Hayes: ExxonMobil.

Original Link

Click to learn about Rhythm BlockBeats job openings

Join Rhythm BlockBeats’ official community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Group Chat: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Twitter Official Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia