Oil prices break $100, the “Seven Giants” wipe out $797 billion: How is the crypto market repricing?

On July 24, 2026, the U.S.-Iran military conflict entered its 13th day. On that day, U.S. President Trump said he was “seriously considering” restarting large-scale combat operations against Iran, with a scope that would exceed the earlier “Epic Anger” operation. The U.S. military has carried out airstrikes on targets inside Iran for the 13th consecutive night, while Iran retaliated by striking U.S. military facilities in Jordan and Kuwait.

This geopolitical shock rapidly swept across the world’s asset-pricing system. Brent crude futures closed at $100.69 per barrel, returning to the $100 level for the first time since May. The U.S. stock “Magnificent Seven” index plunged 4.8% in a single day, with a combined market-cap loss of $797B, marking the largest single-day drop since the April 2025 tariff storm. Crypto markets were under similar pressure: Bitcoin slipped to around $65,000, and the total liquidations across the whole network over 24 hours reached $251 million.

From the Strait of Hormuz to Nasdaq, from crude futures to crypto derivatives—an entire price-transmission chain is being reactivated.

The U.S.-Iran conflict enters day 13: how is the risk premium for escalation from airstrikes to full-scale war priced?

As of July 24, the U.S. military has struck Iranian military targets for 13 consecutive nights. In an interview with Axios, Trump said, “I’m considering launching a large-scale strike—unprecedented in scale. I’m close to making a decision.” He also revealed that if the U.S. side makes a request, Israel would “join in within two minutes.”

The intensity and scope of the conflict are expanding in sync. Yemen’s Houthi forces announced a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia and attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea. This action simultaneously puts two of the world’s key oil transportation corridors—the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea’s Mandeb Strait—at risk of being blocked. The day before, the U.S. had moved additional troops, medical personnel, and weapon equipment into the Middle East.

Markets are not facing a single geopolitical event, but a conflict escalation path that continues to intensify. Trump explicitly said that Iran’s “lessons have not been deep enough,” implying there is a possibility of further escalation of military action. Iran said it is prepared to respond to a U.S. ground invasion. This “escalation option” for the conflict is itself continuously pushing up the risk premium.

Brent breaks through $100: how energy supply shocks ignite inflation expectations

Brent crude futures jumped 7.04% on July 23, closing at $100.69 per barrel. During the session, it briefly touched a two-month high of $102. Since July, Brent crude has risen by nearly 40% in total.

Behind this jump is a concrete supply shock. Houthi attacks on Saudi tankers in the Red Sea opened a new front of the conflict, further cutting off another critical artery of global oil supply on top of earlier U.S.-Iran standoffs that caused traffic disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. Two of the world’s busiest shipping corridors are being threatened within the same month.

Rising energy prices are reshaping inflation expectations. The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds broke further above 4.7% as oil prices moved past $100, refreshing the yearly high. Market expectations for Fed rate hikes have heated up sharply: the probability of a hike next week has risen to about one-third, while a rate hike in September has been fully priced in. The simultaneous rise in both inflation expectations and rate-hike expectations is the core driver behind re-pricing in risk-asset valuations.

Tariff factors further aggravate inflation pressure. On the same day, the Trump administration announced it will impose an additional 10% or 12.5% tariff on goods from 60 trading partners. Energy supply shocks and higher import costs create “dual inflation pressure,” making the macro environment even more complicated.

“Magnificent Seven” market cap wiped out by $797B: a double hit from the AI bubble and rate-hike expectations

On July 24, the U.S. stock tech “Magnificent Seven” index fell 4.8%, with a combined market-cap loss of $797B. Tesla plunged more than 14%, marking its largest single-day drop since March 2025; Google fell more than 7%, and its total market cap fell below $4 trillion; Amazon fell more than 4%; Meta dropped more than 3%; Microsoft slid more than 2%; Apple and Nvidia fell more than 1%.

This selloff was driven by two factors. First is geopolitical and oil-price shocks—Middle East conflict escalations sent international oil prices soaring, lifting inflation expectations and the probability of rate hikes, directly weighing on the valuation logic of high-multiple tech stocks. Second is doubts about the sustainability of AI capital expenditures: the quarterly results of Alphabet and Tesla intensified concerns in the market about the return on investment from artificial intelligence spending. Some tech giants saw free cash flow turn negative due to expanded AI capital expenditures, and investors began re-examining whether the narrative of “infinite AI spending” is sustainable.

Notably, defense stocks and crypto mining-related concept stocks saw very different performances. Lockheed Martin rose more than 10%, and Raytheon Technologies rose more than 7%; crypto miner Cipher Digital rose more than 5%, and Hut 8 rose more than 7%. This clear divergence shows that the market was not simply “escaping risk”—it is re-pricing different asset classes’ exposures to the geopolitical conflict.

Why Bitcoin’s “digital gold” narrative fails in the face of real war

On July 24, Bitcoin traded around $65,000, down about 1.43% overall over the past 24 hours. Ethereum fell to around $1,800. Coinglass shows that over the last 24 hours, total liquidations across the entire network were $251 million, including $189 million liquidated on long positions.

The “digital gold” narrative for Bitcoin—limited supply, decentralized, and transferable globally, and thus should play the role of a store of value during war and inflation—was put to the test again in this conflict. The reality is that when conflict pushes inflation higher through energy prices and triggers tighter policy expectations, Bitcoin often faces pressure alongside risk assets.

The essence of this phenomenon is that Bitcoin’s asset status is still in a “middle state.” In environments with abundant liquidity and moderate inflation, Bitcoin can be priced as “digital gold.” But when the conflict evolves into “full risk-off” sentiment, the correlation between crypto assets and the stock market rises quickly. Bitcoin neither manages to gain a safe-haven premium like gold in a geopolitical crisis, nor does it sell off as sharply as traditional risk assets—this “middle state” precisely indicates that the market’s understanding of Bitcoin’s asset characteristics is still evolving.

At a deeper level, Bitcoin’s pricing logic has already shifted significantly in 2026. It increasingly follows the direction of U.S. stocks, especially tech stocks, rather than independently hedging geopolitical uncertainty. When the risk of an AI bubble bursting and geopolitical shocks arrive at the same time, Bitcoin faces dual pressure—restrained by tightening policy expectations and dragged down by a decline in risk appetite.

From oil prices to liquidations: how macro panic transmits into the crypto leverage structure

The transmission path from geopolitical shocks to the crypto market is clear and verifiable.

Step one: energy shock. Houthi attacks on Red Sea oil tankers combined with disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz: Brent crude rose more than 7% in a single day and broke above $100.

Step two: inflation expectations and rate-hike pricing. Oil prices above $100 push up inflation expectations, leading the market to re-price the Fed’s interest-rate path. The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries broke above 4.7%, and the probability of a July rate hike rose to nearly 40%.

Step three: broad revaluation of risk assets. Higher “risk-free” yields directly suppress high-multiple assets—whether tech stocks on the Nasdaq or Bitcoin. The Magnificent Seven lost $40k in a single day, and the S&P 500 fell 1.21%.

Step four: crypto market leverage liquidation. As risk appetite drops sharply, Bitcoin breaks below key support levels, triggering cascading liquidations. Total liquidations across the entire network over 24 hours were $251 million, including $189 million liquidated on long positions. More than 80k traders were liquidated in total. Bitcoin’s open interest fell by 2.85%, indicating traders are exiting long positions.

The key to this transmission chain is that: the leverage structure in the crypto market amplifies macro shocks. In a backdrop of warming rate-hike expectations and tightening liquidity, high-leverage long positions become the weakest link. Liquidations themselves further intensify selling pressure, creating a negative feedback loop.

When war premium meets the AI bubble: the crypto assets’ double pricing dilemma

The current crypto market faces a rare “double squeeze” pattern.

The first squeeze comes from geopolitics. The U.S.-Iran conflict shows no signs of cooling. Trump is “seriously considering” restarting large-scale military action, and both the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz face blockade risks. The war premium keeps pushing up energy prices and inflation expectations, compressing the valuation room for risk assets.

The second squeeze comes from corrections to the AI bubble. The Magnificent Seven’s single-day plunge is not just a one-off event—it may mark the beginning of the market re-examining AI investment returns. The high correlation between the crypto market and tech stocks means that the retreat of the AI narrative will directly drag down the risk appetite for crypto assets like Bitcoin.

The combined effect of these two squeezes is non-linear. A pure geopolitical conflict might be gradually absorbed by the market, and a pure correction to the AI bubble might be only a structural adjustment. But when both happen at the same time and reinforce each other, the impact on crypto assets becomes exponential: oil prices rising pushes up rate-hike expectations → rate-hike expectations suppress tech-stock valuations → tech-stock declines drag down risk appetite → a decline in risk appetite triggers crypto market liquidations → liquidations intensify selling pressure further, pushing prices even lower.

In this setup, crypto assets cannot hedge geopolitical risk through the “digital gold” narrative, nor can they fully detach from the valuation logic of tech stocks to price independently. This “pressure from both sides” state may be the most core macro characteristic of the crypto market in the second half of 2026.

Summary

The U.S.-Iran conflict entered day 13. Trump is considering restarting large-scale military action. Brent crude broke through $100 per barrel, and the Magnificent Seven saw a single-day market-cap evaporation of $797B. Together, these events form a complete price-transmission chain: geopolitical shock → energy supply disruption → oil-price surge → inflation expectations heat up → rate-hike probability rises → risk-asset revaluation → crypto market leverage liquidation.

Bitcoin’s “digital gold” narrative failed again in this conflict—it neither gained a safe-haven premium nor managed to escape its high correlation with tech stocks. When the war premium and AI bubble correction happen at the same time, crypto assets face a double squeeze from both geopolitics and valuation logic. How long this pattern lasts and the direction it evolves in will depend on the Middle East’s next developments and the Fed’s policy response to inflation pressure.

FAQ

Q: What does Brent crude breaking above $100 mean for the crypto market?

Rising oil prices lift inflation expectations, causing the market to re-price the Fed’s rate path—raising the probability of rate hikes. Higher risk-free yields suppress risk-asset valuations, and the crypto market as a high-beta asset is often hit first. The fact that total liquidations across the whole network on July 24 reached $251 million directly reflects this transmission mechanism.

Q: Why didn’t Bitcoin rise during the war the way it does under the “digital gold” narrative?

Bitcoin’s “digital gold” narrative holds under certain conditions—namely when the conflict does not trigger systemic inflation and tightening expectations. But when the conflict pushes inflation higher through energy prices and triggers rate-hike expectations, Bitcoin and risk assets face pressure at the same time. The Feb 2026 U.S.-Israel airstrike on Iran already validated this logic multiple times: gold rose while Bitcoin fell.

Q: What is the link between the Magnificent Seven’s market-cap wipeout and the crypto market?

In 2026, the correlation between the crypto market and tech stocks has risen significantly. As a key pillar of U.S. stocks, when the Magnificent Seven’s valuations retrace, it directly suppresses overall risk appetite. When AI bubble corrections and geopolitical conflicts occur simultaneously, crypto assets face dual pressure—both from being restrained by tightening expectations and from being dragged down by declining risk appetite.

Q: Does Gate support trading U.S. stocks?

Gate has officially launched real U.S. stock trading functionality. It supports trading more than 10,000+ U.S. stock symbols and provides continuous 24/7 coverage for U.S., Hong Kong, and South Korea markets. Users do not need a traditional U.S. stock brokerage account to participate in U.S. stock market trading.