Interview with Arthur Hayes: AI Will Trigger a Financial Crisis—The Optimal Time to Buy Bitcoin Is When Central Banks Begin Printing Money
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Arthur Hayes: AI Will Trigger a Financial Crisis—The Optimal Time to Buy Bitcoin Is When Central Banks Begin Printing Money
Bitcoin is the “liquidity alarm” for global markets; central banks may need to print more money in the future than they did during the pandemic, and investors should wait until central banks begin printing money before buying Bitcoin.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled & Translated by TechFlow
Guest: Arthur Hayes, Co-Founder of BitMEX
Host: Natalie Brunell
Podcast Source: Natalie Brunell
Original Title: Arthur Hayes: The Fed Will Print Again — That’s When Bitcoin Explodes
Air Date: March 10, 2026
Key Takeaways
Arthur Hayes, Co-Founder of BitMEX and Chief Investment Officer of Maelstrom, joined “Coin Stories” to share his unique insights on Bitcoin, macroeconomics, AI’s disruptive impact, and global liquidity cycles.
The core topics discussed include:
- Why Bitcoin is dubbed the “liquidity alarm” for global markets
- How AI-driven job displacement could ignite the next financial crisis
- Why central banks may need to print even more money than during the pandemic
- Whether institutional investors are reshaping Bitcoin’s market dynamics
- Arthur Hayes’ investment advice: Why you should wait for central bank money printing before buying Bitcoin
Highlights of Key Insights
“Getting fired from Citibank” and entering crypto
- Getting fired from Citibank in 2013 was probably the luckiest thing that ever happened to me.
- I was deeply disillusioned with mainstream finance—especially after the 2008 financial crisis—when people could no longer earn the same kind of income they did when I was in college.
- I realized two things: First, I wasn’t actually that smart. Second, trading profitably over the long term is extremely difficult. If someone like me—with zero technical background—could make money this easily, such opportunities clearly wouldn’t last.
On “institutionalization” versus Bitcoin’s original ethos
- Some people may have forgotten why we entered this industry in the first place. Bitcoin was never created to win approval from large financial institutions.
- So why are we now going to such great lengths to gain acceptance from institutions that don’t care about our interests?
- If crypto becomes just another ordinary fintech product, what’s the appeal? Wouldn’t it be simpler to buy stocks directly through a brokerage account? In fact, stock trading might even be safer.
On the “liquidity alarm” and macro trends
- Bitcoin is effectively a “liquidity alarm.” Its price action tells us there isn’t enough dollar liquidity in the market to meet various liquidity demands—explaining Bitcoin’s underperformance over the past 6–9 months.
- Gold’s rally isn’t driven by “currency devaluation trades,” but rather by sovereign nations increasingly recognizing the growing risk of holding U.S. dollar assets.
- Holding gold is clearly safer—especially since 2022, when the U.S. and EU froze Russia’s assets, accelerating this trend.
On AI-induced “Minsky Moments”
- AI is advancing far faster than factory workers were displaced decades ago.
- Replacing just 10%–20% of white-collar jobs could trigger leverage effects across the banking system, leading to cascading failures—a classic “Minsky Moment”: panic selling erupts once markets realize certain assets are worth zero.
On “war and money printing” as an investment strategy
- If someone says “war is good for Bitcoin,” what they really mean is “war means money printing—and money printing is good for Bitcoin.” So my advice is to wait for money printing—not try to time the market.
- If I had only $1 to invest today, I’d sit on it.
- The longer the war drags on, the more likely the Fed will resort to money printing to sustain the war effort. That’s precisely when I’ll buy Bitcoin.
On privacy and AI-powered deanonymization threats
- The real threat will come from AI tools capable of deanonymizing your transactions—this is the true “game-changer.”
- Feed a specific address and a person’s name into a large language model (LLM), and it can generate a high-probability match.
- If you truly need a fully anonymous electronic cash system, Bitcoin may not be the right choice.
- This is exactly why I’m bullish on Zcash.
Psychological reassurance for investors
- Markets aren’t designed to make you money—they’re designed to take your money.
- Expecting life-changing returns from any asset within six months is unrealistic.
- You’ll see some people get rich overnight due to luck—but I’d bet they’ll lose it all within the next six months, believing they can replicate those gains through risky trading strategies.
Who Is Arthur Hayes? His Legendary Journey
Natalie Brunell: Hello everyone, welcome back to the show. This week we’re joined by Arthur Hayes, CIO of Maelstrom—and an OG.
I’d like to start with your background story—it’s fascinating. I recall reading that you grew up in Michigan and later entered finance. You co-founded BitMEX, got involved with Bitcoin early on, and then embarked on an extraordinary journey. Would you share your story with us?
Arthur Hayes:
Absolutely. I was born in Buffalo, New York, spent most of my childhood in Detroit, and attended the University of Pennsylvania, where I studied undergraduate business at Wharton from 2004 to 2008. During that time, I developed a strong interest in China and took Chinese language and business courses. In 2006, I went to Hong Kong as an exchange student—I loved it so much that I landed a summer internship at Deutsche Bank’s Hong Kong branch and ultimately secured a full-time role in 2008, relocating to Asia, where I’ve lived ever since.
I’ve spent half my life in Hong Kong, Singapore, and elsewhere across Asia—never working in the U.S., and rarely returning. I spent five years in financial services: three years at Deutsche Bank as Head of ETF Market Making in Asia, when ETFs were still nascent there.
Later, I moved to Citibank, doing the same work. Looking back, getting fired from Citibank in 2013 was probably the luckiest thing that ever happened to me. I was deeply disillusioned with mainstream finance—especially post-2008 crisis—when people could no longer earn the same kind of income they did when I was in college.
So I felt this industry offered little long-term upside for me—and decided to try something different. Around that time, I saw a Bitcoin post on Zero Hedge, read the white paper, and was captivated by its philosophy. Though I had no technical background—I’m a trader—I asked myself: “How do I trade Bitcoin?” So I scoured forums, researched every exchange available, and looked for ways to go long, short, or access derivatives.
Eventually, I found a small derivatives exchange run by two Russians in the Caribbean. I spotted a perfect arbitrage opportunity: Sell their futures contracts while buying spot Bitcoin—earning ~200% annualized returns. So I bought my first Bitcoin on Mt. Gox, sold some futures, and a month later, collected the expected BTC profits—repeating this for several months.
By fall 2013, Mt. Gox ran into problems—like delays withdrawing USD. I tried moving dollars to my bank account but waited weeks. Monitoring forum discussions, I saw others faced similar issues. While USD withdrawals stalled, BTC withdrawals remained instant—and in fall 2013, Bitcoin traded at a massive 40–60% premium in China.
So I used my stuck USD on Mt. Gox to buy BTC, transferred them to Chinese exchanges, settled in RMB, took buses to open Chinese bank accounts, withdrew cash, and shuttled back to Hong Kong—exploiting the HK-China price gap repeatedly.
This earned me some money—but as a trader, I realized two things: First, I wasn’t that smart. Second, consistent long-term trading profits are nearly impossible. If someone like me—with zero tech background—could earn such easy money, it clearly wouldn’t last. So I started thinking about building something more durable to stay in crypto.
That’s when I thought of derivatives. Though I couldn’t code, I decided to build my own Bitcoin derivatives exchange. I pitched the idea to contacts in Hong Kong’s finance circles—and in 2014, we began developing BitMEX, launching its first futures contract that November.
Of course, our most famous product—the Perpetual Swap launched in May 2016—as your audience likely knows, remains the highest-volume crypto financial product to date. We made substantial profits and briefly led the industry—until Binance surpassed us in 2020. After that, I shifted to managing my family office, focusing on early-stage crypto investments and directional trading. Now, we’re launching a private equity fund targeting acquisitions and operational optimization of crypto companies.
Bitcoin’s Future Price Trajectory: Bullish or Bearish?
Natalie Brunell: You’ve been deeply involved in crypto for years, witnessing its evolution—from early block-size debates to today’s institutional adoption. Has your outlook on Bitcoin grown more bullish over time? Some early OGs cashed out, while others grow increasingly enthusiastic—even predicting $1 million per Bitcoin. What’s your view?
Arthur Hayes:
I personally love this space and the people here—the most fascinating individuals I’ve ever met. Though I may turn bearish or bullish on Bitcoin at certain points, I firmly believe the demand for stateless money is stronger today than it was at Bitcoin’s Genesis Block in 2009. So whether it’s Bitcoin or other cryptos, I’m thrilled to be part of this journey.
Though I may hold short-term pessimism toward Bitcoin or other assets, I remain extremely bullish on Bitcoin and crypto overall over the long term. In fact, aside from fitness-related activities, most of my professional life has been devoted to crypto.
Are Institutions Dominating the Bitcoin Market?
Natalie Brunell: Many listeners following my show felt confused and disappointed by the last Bitcoin bull run—they didn’t see prices rise as expected. Retail participation was low; institutions drove the cycle. What’s your take?
Arthur Hayes:
I think some people may have forgotten why we entered this industry in the first place. Bitcoin wasn’t created to win approval from big financial institutions. From zero to $66,000, Bitcoin never relied on government support, clear regulation—or even friendly banks and regulators. So why are we now bending over backward to seek acceptance from institutions indifferent to our interests?
Our focus should be cultivating talent building new financial systems for humanity’s next era—not catering to legacy finance. I’m not saying institutions shouldn’t hold crypto—but we mustn’t compromise crypto’s essence and founding principles to appease them.
Crypto’s true value lies in its transformative technology. If we keep tailoring it to traditional finance’s needs, it risks devolving into just another ordinary financial tool. Then people might ask: Why hold crypto at all? Buying stocks via brokerage is simpler—and arguably safer. If crypto becomes just another fintech product, what’s its appeal?
Is Bitcoin’s Price Manipulated?
Natalie Brunell: There’s been recent chatter on X about institutions manipulating and suppressing Bitcoin’s price—e.g., Jane Street, recently in the news. With your deep experience in derivatives, trading firms, and traditional finance, how do you view these concerns and theories?
Arthur Hayes:
I don’t buy into these narratives. Often, someone posts on X: “Oh, I lost money—someone else must be to blame.” That’s usually the hallmark of a poor trader. They say: “I made a trade, it failed, and then I saw news about Company X doing something shady—so they must be responsible.” But reality is often simpler: Their strategy was immature, timing flawed, or they underestimated market complexity.
I don’t believe in a “sinister conspiracy”—e.g., Jane Street colluding with other market makers to suppress Bitcoin. Markets operate according to their own rules, with institutions participating in diverse ways. Yes, derivatives liquidity plays a key role in short-term price volatility—but that doesn’t imply manipulation.
Let me emphasize: If you’re not a professional crypto trader, stay vigilant. Crypto markets run 24/7—meaning your phone must stay on, with alerts set. If the market crashes at 2 a.m., you’ll wake up to notifications—and act. Without that readiness, avoid leverage or short-term profit expectations.
If you simply want to buy and hold Bitcoin long-term, short-term price swings matter little.
What’s Hindering Bitcoin’s Growth?
Natalie Brunell: What factors do you see currently hindering Bitcoin’s development—especially amid rising awareness of “currency devaluation trades”? All assets seem to be rallying into gold, while we hoped Bitcoin would decouple—but it hasn’t.
Arthur Hayes:
In my view, Bitcoin is essentially a “liquidity alarm.” The U.S.—particularly—is sitting on a massive deflationary time bomb linked to AI’s disruptive impact on labor markets. Bitcoin and tech stocks signal a potential credit collapse in the highly leveraged Fed system, especially as high-income roles get replaced faster and cheaper by AI during corporate cost-cutting.
Bitcoin’s price tells us there’s insufficient dollar liquidity to meet demand—especially for hyperscaler capex. That explains Bitcoin’s weakness over the past 6–9 months. Nasdaq held steady, yet Bitcoin dropped ~50%. Meanwhile, gold rose steadily.
I believe gold’s rally isn’t about “currency devaluation trades,” but sovereign nations realizing the growing risk of holding dollar assets. History proves these assets aren’t fully owned by holders—your economic sovereignty rests with U.S. Treasury officials. They can dilute your holdings via bond issuance—or freeze/seize assets via sanctions. So why hold such assets with your reserves?
Holding gold is clearly safer—which is why central banks have steadily accumulated gold since 2008. This accelerated dramatically after the U.S. and EU froze Russia’s assets in 2022.
How AI’s Disruptive Impact Is Reshaping Markets
Natalie Brunell: Returning to your earlier AI comments—you wrote a great piece on AI’s deflationary shock and white-collar job risks. You also noted private credit and broader credit markets will contract at some point—triggering massive Fed money printing and propelling Bitcoin higher.
Do you see this as imminent—or a slow, gradual process eventually lifting Bitcoin?
Arthur Hayes:
I’m uncertain—but it may happen faster than most expect, given AI’s exponential progress. Recall the 2008 subprime crisis: It brewed ~7 years after China joined the WTO, causing ~35% of U.S. manufacturing jobs to vanish. Displaced workers fell into poverty, took subprime loans, and defaulted—though default rates rose only slightly, leverage amplified losses into systemic crisis.
AI advances far faster than factory-worker displacement. We’ve seen firms like The Block slash 40% of staff overnight. In the U.S., flexible labor laws (“at-will employment”) mean similar cuts are actively discussed. Once firms realize AI performs tasks more efficiently, they may rapidly cut 10%, 20%, or even 30% of staff.
My point isn’t that all white-collar jobs vanish—but replacing just 10%–20% suffices to trigger leverage effects and chain reactions. This mirrors a “Minsky Moment”: Panic selling erupts when markets realize certain assets are worthless. Though full impact may take 2–3 years, market reaction could be near-instant.
We can’t predict timing—but once a “collective consensus” forms—e.g., “AI disruption is here, mass white-collar layoffs are underway”—people may question financial stocks’ value. Bank stocks could plunge 60–70% in days, triggering deposit flight from smaller banks to JPMorgan/Citibank—and forcing rapid Fed intervention.
So while full impact takes 2–3 years, market perception may shift instantly. A single “consensus moment”—e.g., “AI’s economic impact is undeniable”—could trigger massive reaction.
Social Unrest and Economic Stress Impacting Crypto Markets
Natalie Brunell: Are you concerned about the societal implications?
U.S. societal division is worsening—mass discontent, escalating unrest. Politically, tribalism intensifies. As unemployment rises, some voters embrace candidates promising “free benefits.” This core frustration creates ripple effects—and many fail to recognize the need to accumulate hard assets like Bitcoin.
Arthur Hayes:
Indeed, social contracts between labor and capital differ globally. In the U.S., it’s fragile—capital dominates, labor’s rights neglected. Elsewhere, it’s more balanced. So yes, we’re headed toward a deeply fractious era.
Many believed themselves wealthy—then lost jobs and became the very people they once scorned, dependent on government aid. How does that affect self-esteem? How do they express anger—politically, or directly, like armed street protests? Some may oppose data center construction—or target tech giants like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Mark Zuckerberg, accusing them of profiting from destroying ordinary Americans’ livelihoods and stealing their American Dream.
I can’t predict outcomes—but future societal evolution won’t be linear. It’ll be volatile, uncertain, and inevitably fractious—as America’s existing social contract must be redefined. How it changes? Unclear—but it’ll be challenging and painful.
Can Bitcoin Solve Global Affordability Issues?
Natalie Brunell: Many feel frustrated—they can’t afford homes or participate in decades of capital/wealth accumulation. Bitcoin seems an obvious solution: People can accumulate gradually. Yet resistance persists—surprising, given our progress.
Arthur Hayes:
I think buying a little Bitcoin won’t solve your problems. If you earn $250,000/year but lose your job—and face a $750,000 mortgage plus $50,000/month in credit card debt—Bitcoin won’t help. Of course, for long-term accumulators, it’s a superb asset—and I believe its price will rise long-term. But for those who felt wealthy yesterday and broke today, Bitcoin offers no immediate relief. They may realize they overspent maintaining a “dream lifestyle.”
I believe Bitcoin suits those with idle capital who recognize it as a solution. If you’re vulnerable to AI/economic disruption, rethink lifestyle and spending—e.g., do you need expensive gadgets or high-cost city living? As they say, “The first seller sells best.” When people realize they must cut costs—who’ll buy those overpriced homes? If income drops from $250,000 to $75,000, major life adjustments follow.
Natalie Brunell: Even so—among all possible solutions or “life rafts,” don’t people have very limited options? If someone lives paycheck-to-paycheck, faces unstable work, owns no assets, and risks obsolescence—the future feels terrifyingly uncertain. What can help them?
Arthur Hayes:
Honestly, I’ve never faced this—so I analyze externally. But the priority is auditing life costs and cutting unnecessary expenses. Ask: What do I truly need? Past Amazon impulse buys may give way to budget-conscious alternatives. Crucially, adjust finances quickly—so when crisis hits, you’re prepared and better positioned to pivot.
What Do Bitcoin Investors Expect from Markets?
Natalie Brunell: I meet investors who entered Bitcoin only at the last bull run’s peak—$50,000 or $60,000. Now they’re frustrated—price crashed, crypto markets collapsed. Their investment brought no “life-changing” returns.
They often say: “It changed nothing for me.” Sometimes I wonder, what can I tell them to reignite motivation for DCA-ing Bitcoin slowly? For them, this investment hasn’t materially altered wealth. They may think all opportunities passed—early entrants (pre-2017 buyers/miners) accumulated vast Bitcoin on modest incomes. Now, such chances seem gone. What can they accumulate today?
Arthur Hayes:
First, recalibrate expectations. Whether Bitcoin, stocks, or real estate—markets aren’t designed to make you money; they’re designed to take your money. Short time horizons + high expectations breed risk-taking—even leverage—as you rush for quick gains, believing “this is a transformative asset.”
But have you considered how early Bitcoin winners endured? How they felt when Bitcoin plunged from $250 to $70 in 2013? Or from $1,300 to $135 in 2014? Most see today’s gains—but ignore Bitcoin’s early volatility, 3–4x higher than now. If you bought $10,000 of Bitcoin at $100, you might sell at $200—or dump at $99 in disappointment, failing to meet short-term price expectations.
So, Bitcoin won’t instantly fix your finances—its power lies in long-term accumulation. Like “stocks are best for long-term investing,” Bitcoin fits too. Compounding and time are capital’s strongest forces—but time is key. Hold and accumulate consistently, and Bitcoin may exponentially grow your wealth.
But expecting “life-changing” returns in 6 months is unrealistic. Sure, some get lucky overnight—but I’d bet they lose it all within 6 months, chasing identical gains via reckless strategies.
Bitcoin in China: Current State and Future Outlook
Natalie Brunell: What’s Bitcoin adoption and investor sentiment like in your region—or places like China? I hear conflicting reports.
Arthur Hayes:
Actually, China’s central and local governments still engage in Bitcoin mining. Review Bitcoin network IP data—you’ll see China contributes 20%–30% of global hash rate. Why did China shutter most non-government-affiliated mines? Mainly energy policy shifts—especially amid U.S.-Israel-Iran tensions—China avoids reliance on imported oil/hydrocarbons. The government prioritizes energy for national goals—EVs, batteries, humanoid robots—not Bitcoin mining.
This is a key reason the CCP pushed mining exit: It consumes massive energy without direct economic benefit. Still, idle energy resources let smaller local governments quietly continue mining under central oversight. So large-scale mines still operate—often tied to local or central authorities.
Thus, while China nominally bans mining, reality is nuanced.
How Governments View Bitcoin
Natalie Brunell: I suspect China may have accumulated significant Bitcoin at the national level—perhaps why the U.S. avoids disclosing its holdings. Could this relate to U.S.-China rivalry? If China holds more Bitcoin than the U.S., what impact would that have?
Arthur Hayes:
Possibly—but uncertain. Focusing on sovereign Bitcoin holdings seems unproductive. Even assuming China holds 200,000 BTC—worth billions—the scale pales vs. gold markets. And gold remains tiny vs. dollar equities or real estate. So neither U.S. nor Chinese governments lose sleep over Bitcoin holdings—its influence on national wealth remains negligible.
Natalie Brunell: Do you disagree with Max Kaiser’s view? He predicts “hash wars”—governments competing for mining power and hoarding Bitcoin.
Arthur Hayes:
I disagree. Sovereign states don’t care much about Bitcoin. Even in the U.S., Bitcoin serves mainly as a political tool—see Trump-era policies. Campaign promises may diverge sharply from implementation—showing Bitcoin’s role is electoral, not economic.
In China, it’s even less relevant. The government cares about RMB internationalization and trade usage—not what citizens do with Bitcoin.
Current Status and Challenges of Bitcoin Adoption
Natalie Brunell: Bitcoin is transformative—it frees us from legacy finance and fiat. What’s its 5–10 year outlook? How will adoption/growth evolve? Surely price appreciation helps drive adoption, right?
Arthur Hayes:
I believe price appreciation is indeed key to driving Bitcoin adoption—price surges act like viral marketing. Why did I learn about Bitcoin? Because its 2013 rally drew media coverage—and I dug deeper. So if Bitcoin jumps from $66,000 to $500,000 in five years, it’ll attract new users and rekindle interest in its tech/potential. Such leaps are critical for adoption.
What drives this fundamentally? Liquidity. How much fiat—USD, EUR, JPY, CNY—is printed. As long as this continues—and I see no end in sight—mathematically, expanding money supply lifts Bitcoin’s price.
Of course, volatility and path uncertainty are unavoidable. War or shocks could push Bitcoin to $20,000 in weeks. But long-term, fractional-reserve banking forces governments to print endlessly—an irreversible trend. This persistent monetary expansion fuels Bitcoin’s long-term price rise—drawing more participants and becoming adoption’s core engine.
Will Retail Investors Return to Bitcoin?
Natalie Brunell: Will we see another retail-driven Bitcoin cycle? Institutions now dominate—will ordinary people ever drive the next wave again?
Arthur Hayes:
Absolutely—but this time, the star may not be Bitcoin, but another crypto. Perhaps culture-linked assets—NFTs or memes. I know many lost money on memes last cycle—now seemingly faded—but memes were the main driver then.
New catalysts will emerge. I believe central banks will keep printing—to prevent AI-driven economic/job shocks from sparking street unrest. Until we fairly distribute productivity gains, owning assets resilient to monetary flooding is prudent. Whatever retail favors—whether Bitcoin or something else—they’ll flood back into conferences, events, and hype cycles.
Impact of Monetary Expansion on Bitcoin
Natalie Brunell: Might governments print more than during the pandemic to tackle new economic challenges?
Arthur Hayes:
Likely—this is exponential. Governments must print not just to solve current problems, but to service prior debt. Study U.S. debt growth—it’s textbook exponential.
This is just the beginning. Imagine AI delivers on its promise—though I doubt it fully—everyone loses jobs. Not likely—but if robots/AI replace everyone, banks collapse, forcing massive money printing.
I don’t foresee this extreme—but it’s a useful mental model for AI’s potential consequences.
Career Development in the AI Era: Opportunities and Challenges
Natalie Brunell: If you’d just graduated college and wanted maximum wealth accumulation, what would you do?
Arthur Hayes:
Start a podcast. Computers do much—but input still comes from human dialogue and text. AI needs fresh experiences and human inputs to predict and serve. So those driving conversation and creating novel content will be most valuable in the post-AI world. Whatever your skill—writing, singing, dancing, or other creative expression—these are AI’s unserved needs and its learning fuel.
Natalie Brunell: Many fear AI is replacing creative jobs. I see hyper-realistic AI videos—sometimes indistinguishable from reality. Won’t distinguishing real from virtual become impossible?
Arthur Hayes:
Yes—it will be hard. That’s why people buy Worldcoin or develop sovereign ID tech like “human verification.” These may become standards—but specifics remain unclear. It’s a decades-old research problem.
Think: When you prompt AI—“generate something like this”—you reference real people, bands, or existing content. AI mimics. So strive to be the person AI wants to mimic in every way.
Natalie Brunell: What’s your favorite AI tool? Do you use them regularly?
Arthur Hayes:
I’ve recently adopted Perplexity’s tools—I find them powerful, like intelligent task orchestration platforms. Friends bought Mac Minis, installed Clawbot or similar tools, diving deep into AI implementation—but I lack time/interest in such technical details. Perplexity handles parallel tasks and leverages AI Agents. I foresee a trend: People like me won’t coordinate multiple AI Agents ourselves—we’ll pay companies like Perplexity for simplified workflows. I mainly use it for research and chart generation—extremely convenient.
Natalie Brunell: Did you see the recent article by an Anthropic researcher who quit, declaring human society doomed—and moved to London? Are you concerned about AI’s negative impacts or dystopian predictions?
Arthur Hayes:
Possibly—but life’s too short to obsess over this. I don’t know if the future will be good or bad. Sci-fi novels depict both. Whatever happens, it’s inevitable—so I won’t worry.
Maelstrom Fund: Its Impact on Crypto Markets
Natalie Brunell: Tell us about your work. As CIO of Maelstrom, what do you do? What’s the firm’s business?
Arthur Hayes:
I co-founded Maelstrom with my partner Akshat—he worked for me at BitMEX, and we launched the firm in 2013. Honestly, I’m not great at early-stage investing—I lack patience. We have no LPs, so we’re free from external pressures—focusing purely on profitable opportunities and technically sophisticated early-stage deals.
Initially, we wrote small checks—$50,000–$250,000—into early projects. We timed it perfectly: prime for investing in standout “shitcoins.” For example, Etherfi began as an Ethereum staking provider, evolved into a novel bank—and we’re now advisors. We advise Pendle and Athena too. Athena originated as my protocol idea, implemented by Guy Young’s team, now the third-largest stablecoin protocol.
We performed exceptionally early on. Later, we pivoted to advisory services—which explains why you often see me speaking on podcasts or at crypto conferences, sharing updates and token picks. Advisory fees are paid in tokens—we believe in their long-term upside.
We also entered liquidity trading. I hired a colleague who worked with me at BitMEX and Deutsche Bank—now focused on crypto directional and volatility trading. Our strategy is predominantly long, rarely shorting.
Recently, we expanded into private equity. We identified excellent crypto firms—e.g., data availability and API connectivity providers—supporting trading, attracting heavy funding, and boasting high margins. Often founded by non-U.S. founders, their valuations are undervalued. Founders, having built for years, may seek partial liquidity. We step in—providing capital, acquiring firms, replacing management, installing new ops teams, boosting P/E ratios, then IPOing or selling to financial institutions seeking quality assets. We’re currently fundraising for this fund.
Regulation, Privacy, and Quantum Computing Threats
Natalie Brunell: Lately, crypto faces increasing regulatory scrutiny—especially AML/KYC rules and crackdowns on privacy tools. Will this tension persist? Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer nature clashes with fears of institutional control and eroded privacy—how will this evolve?
Arthur Hayes:
Undoubtedly, Bitcoin symbolizes this clash. Many fear absurd KYC/AML mandates stripping Bitcoin’s privacy. Concerns are valid—but implementation may differ. I believe the real threat comes from AI tools deanonymizing transactions—the true “game-changer.”
This may require no new regulations—just feed an address + person into an LLM for a high-probability match. This already works—accuracy may improve, but it’s happening.
This is why I’m bullish on Zcash: a privacy-first Bitcoin variant, built on Bitcoin’s code but adding zero-knowledge proofs. If you need fully anonymous e-cash, Bitcoin isn’t ideal. Core devs won’t add such features—but Zcash was designed for this. If you fear AI + Big Tech data + government control, privacy coins like Zcash or Monero suit you better.
Natalie Brunell: What’s your view on quantum computing threats?
Arthur Hayes:
I’m not overly worried. I’ve discussed this extensively with Johnny Beer of BitMEX Research. Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) already outline methods to secure Bitcoin post-quantum computing.
If quantum worries you, solutions exist—e.g., using latest Bitcoin address types. Send BTC to these addresses and use them once—quantum threats vanish.
However, using 2009-era addresses poses risks in a mature quantum era—quantum computers could derive private keys from public keys and transaction history. But overall, it’s not imminent. The community actively researches solutions—and post-quantum adaptations are feasible.
Generally, quantum concerns feel like FUD. Every few years, “quantum panic” resurfaces—“I won’t buy Bitcoin—quantum will break it.” But solutions exist—just need time to deploy. So I’m not particularly concerned.
Will Institutions Drive a Bitcoin Fork?
Natalie Brunell: Some predict Bitcoin may face another “block size war”—but this time driven institutionally. E.g., a “BlackRock Chain” could emerge, triggering a fork. Could this happen? What would it look like?
Arthur Hayes:
It’s possible—if BlackRock controlled 30% of hash rate. But realistically, BlackRock is no different from anyone else—just a Bitcoin holder. Their core business is asset management: taking client assets, custodying, charging fees.
Yet real influence on Bitcoin comes from miners, node operators, and ecosystem participants—not BlackRock. So a “BlackRock Chain” lacks feasibility—unless they buy ASIC miners and start mining. If you describe such a scenario, we can discuss “BlackRock-led hard forks.” Otherwise, it’s meaningless.
Has Bitcoin’s Price Bottomed?
Natalie Brunell: Final question: Has Bitcoin’s price bottomed?
Arthur Hayes:
Uncertain. In a recent article, I analyzed the U.S.-Iran war—arguing prolonged conflict could trigger massive equity selloffs and further Bitcoin declines—even below $60,000—sparking cascading liquidations. So if I had only $1 to invest today, I’d wait—not buy now.
My view: The longer the conflict drags on, the more likely the Fed will print to sustain the U.S. war machine. And when central banks print—that’s when I’ll buy Bitcoin. We’re already seeing signals—e.g., Trump possibly deploying ground troops or declaring the war will last “as long as needed.” Longer war = greater likelihood of Fed money printing. Throughout my life, major Middle East wars almost always triggered such responses.
So if someone says “war is good for Bitcoin,” they really mean “war means printing—and printing is good for Bitcoin.” My advice: Wait for printing—don’t try to time the market. You’ll likely misjudge. News is often mainstream propaganda—conveying what authorities want heard—not what will happen. So watch what they do—not what they say.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Arthur Hayes
