Interview with Arthur Hayes: AI Has Drained Market Liquidity; BTC Will Be Below $100,000 by Year-End

2026.06.17

Interview with Arthur Hayes: AI Has Drained Market Liquidity; BTC Will Be Below $100,000 by Year-End

In his view, SpaceX’s IPO—valued at $1.8 trillion with a price-to-sales ratio of 100—is a liquidity time bomb bound to explode sooner or later.

2026.06.17 - 06:17:24

比特币AI

Navigating Web3 tides with focused insights

In his view, SpaceX’s IPO—valued at $1.8 trillion with a price-to-sales ratio of 100—is a liquidity time bomb bound to explode sooner or later.

Compiled & Translated by TechFlow

Guest: Arthur Hayes, Co-Founder of BitMEX

Host: Kyle Chasse, CEO of Master Ventures

Podcast Source: Kyle Chasse Crypto

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

Air Date: June 10, 2026

Key Takeaways

Arthur Hayes liquidated his largest crypto positions—HYPE, NEAR, Worldcoin, and Zcash—not due to concerns intrinsic to crypto itself, but rather based on a macroeconomic chain of reasoning spanning oil prices, the Iran war, Trump’s midterm election strategy, and the bursting of the AI bubble. He believes Trump may reverse course and turn against the AI industry to salvage his midterm electoral prospects—and once the AI bubble peaks, crypto markets won’t be spared. In Hayes’ view, SpaceX’s planned IPO at an $1.8 trillion valuation and 100x price-to-sales ratio is a liquidity time bomb waiting to detonate.

Highlights of Key Insights

Why He Liquidated Everything

"Voters dislike high oil prices and energy-driven inflation."
"The higher oil prices rise, the more eager everyone becomes to negotiate—but as soon as oil prices fall, suddenly no one wants to reach an agreement."

Trump Turning Anti-AI

"If he wants to pull a rabbit out of a hat, the only issue he can flip is AI—temporarily adopting the Democrats’ microphone to declare that we must protect Americans from AI’s harms, causing people to forget that Republicans financed it all."
"What would be most destructive to the AI narrative is taxation and regulation."

New Portfolio Allocation

"Most of my liquid assets are in U.S. Treasuries and energy stocks."
"I’m not saying AI won’t continue growing—I’m saying the market’s willingness to pay forward multiples for that growth will decline, thereby driving down asset prices."

The Math Behind the AI Capex Bubble

"I trade based on gut feel and intuition, not rigorous analysis. I sense we’re at some stage of the AI bubble—I just don’t know which stage."
"You cannot justify valuing SpaceX—or any AI company—at 100x sales when both profitability and capital expenditures are decelerating. What matters is how fast growth is accelerating—or decelerating—and how you perceive that rate of change."
"When you invest in AI, you’re not investing in earnings—you’re investing in data center capex. You’re betting on the second derivative—the acceleration or deceleration of a trend. If the trend accelerates, you’ll pay infinite multiples for future revenue; if it decelerates, you won’t."
"We’ve already reached $800 billion in AI capex for 2026. By 2027, that second derivative will begin to slow—you simply cannot sustain 100x sales valuations for SpaceX or any AI company while both profits and spending decelerate."
"There will always be tension between capital and labor—whether voluntary or forced—until some kind of agreement inevitably emerges."

Why Bitcoin Has Underperformed AI

"Since ChatGPT’s commercialization, U.S. M2 has increased by roughly $1.5 trillion—but during the same period, AI and AI-related companies issued about $1.5 trillion in debt—$1.3 trillion of which was concentrated between 2025 and 2026. AI has absorbed all excess liquidity."
"When the bubble bursts, correlations converge at 1—AI falls, Bitcoin falls, everything falls together—until the dust settles and certain assets begin to outperform."
"Over the next six months, AI will undergo a major correction driven by rising oil prices and U.S. political dynamics—and Bitcoin won’t escape unscathed."

The SpaceX IPO Trap

"The market doesn’t expect this IPO to merely trade normally—it expects a 50% surge, an absurdly outsized gain, to signal that the market still believes in AI, that it picked the right star company, and that its trajectory remains unstoppable."
"At an ~$1.8 trillion IPO valuation, SpaceX would instantly become the world’s seventh-largest company. Its trading valuation approaches 100x price-to-sales—a ludicrous figure for a company that has yet to prove anything."
"This is a classic crypto scam pattern: low circulating supply, high fully diluted valuation, with only 4–5% circulating now—rising to nearly 25% by September—as insiders dump shares continuously from July through October."

Evidence Supporting the Anti-AI Strategy

"I asked Perplexity AI to search every competitive congressional district for local legislation restricting or opposing data center construction. Result: If Trump pivots anti-AI, he could flip enough seats to retain control of the House."
"Trump has no ideology—he only cares about winning. In 2020, he mailed checks to every American—the purest form of direct cash transfer. So don’t assume he won’t embrace naked populism."

The Fed, Waller, and Rate Risk

"Oil prices are higher and unlikely to fall anytime soon. The 2-year Treasury yield currently sits about 60 bps above the effective federal funds rate. Markets are telling the Fed: ‘You need to hike.’"
"Bubbles fear nothing more than rising rates—higher funding costs invariably drive participants away from this casino."
"I see no room for Waller to cut rates. If rate-cut expectations underpin your optimism about AI’s bubble and its sustainability, then you should seriously question that assumption."

Crypto Catalysts and Re-entry Timing

"I see little evidence of new money creation—and even if it happens, it flows straight into AI infrastructure."
"If we returned to that perfect economic sweet spot—high growth and low inflation—what would you buy? NVIDIA or Bitcoin? You’d unquestionably pick NVIDIA—or Samsung, right? Because they’ve surged 50x in two years. Would you buy Bitcoin? Of course not."
"That’s precisely when crypto can outperform—when AI has suffered a credibility collapse—not that it ceases to exist, but that its explosive growth has stalled, forcing investors to trade something else. I hope that ‘something else’ is crypto—and that liquidity returns accordingly."

Quick-fire Q&A

"Will Bitcoin be above or below $100,000 by year-end? — Below."
"If you had $1 million to allocate today—to Bitcoin, HYPE, short-term Treasuries, or gold—which would you choose? — ExxonMobil."

Why He Liquidated Everything

Host Kyle Chasse: Arthur, welcome back. Recently, you sold off Zcash, HYPE, and NEAR—and everyone’s accusing you of exiting scams and dumping on top. Why did you sell everything? What’s really going on?

Arthur Hayes:

I just published an article titled “Reality Check,” about 5,000 words long, outlining the argument I’ll summarize in just a few minutes on this podcast. If you want deeper insight into my reasoning, I strongly recommend reading it on my Substack. At its core, however, the thesis hinges on a reflexive interaction between oil prices and Trump’s midterm campaign rhetoric—he needs Republican help to defeat Democrats and retain control of both chambers in November. The problem lies in the current Iran war—you may like it or not, but it’s here, now, and real.

So Trump and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard need some kind of agreement to end this conflict. Both sides face a practical constraint: oil prices determine how angry different regions of the world get at each other. Trump must worry domestically—voters hate high oil prices and energy-driven inflation. Meanwhile, Iran faces pressure from China and other developing nations: “What are you doing? We need this oil, these goods moving through the Strait of Hormuz. Yes, the U.S. attacked you—but figure it out.” So the higher oil prices go, the more eager everyone becomes to negotiate—but as soon as oil prices fall, suddenly no one wants to reach an agreement. We’ve been swinging back and forth like this for roughly three months—or as long as the war has lasted.

As this process continues, we’re steadily depleting commercial and national reserves of oil and other hydrocarbons. Pick any energy analyst—their charts differ, but their conclusions align: pre-war inventories were abundant, leading markets to believe oil and gas supplies were plentiful and thus pricing them relatively low. But we’re now burning through those surpluses at an accelerating pace. At some point, we’ll hit a threshold—I don’t know how many billions of barrels, and each analyst offers different figures and timelines. Once we cross that date, things will deteriorate rapidly—and the only way to restore market equilibrium is a sharp spike in oil prices.

Worst-case scenario: Trump and the IRGC fail to reach an agreement. By October, the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, with only 25–30% of normal traffic getting through—far too little. More likely, some agreement emerges in one or two months, partially restoring shipping through the Strait. But then everyone must rebuild inventories—you’ll need to replenish national reserves, and you’ll likely stockpile even more than before—because you’ve just experienced firsthand being held hostage by Trump and a group of Iranian generals who dictate whether your country receives essential goods. So you think: “I’ll stockpile more oil, natural gas, helium—everything needed to run a modern economy.” That drives additional demand—not necessarily pushing prices to catastrophic levels, but ensuring oil, gas, and commodity prices rise over the next three or four months.

The Link Between Oil, War, and Elections

Arthur Hayes:

Following this logic further, Trump and his GOP allies face near-certain defeat in the 2026 midterm elections—especially in the House. Just check Polymarket: odds of Democrats regaining House control have surged to 82%.

Why? Clearly, Trump is getting crushed on cost-of-living issues. People perceive inflation as terrible—and worsening. To ordinary citizens, Republicans hold the White House, and this disastrous conflict was instigated by them—so the blame lands squarely on the GOP. That’s why people expect them to lose—and lose badly.

The problem is, there’s little Trump can do about inflation—policy lags are long, and supply chains are only now absorbing events from three or four months ago. I don’t believe Trump can meaningfully shift the inflation narrative. People see and feel it at the pump—Trump has no magic trick to convince them inflation doesn’t exist—it does, and they witness it every other day filling up their tanks. So what issue could shake America’s entire political spectrum? Answer: AI data centers—and the regulation, taxation, and broader backlash surrounding them. I believe Democrats have landed on a powerful campaign message: halt new data centers, tax AI giants, regulate AI. It’s not just the poor losing jobs—wealthy professionals fear AI displacement too, at least that’s the prevailing anxiety.

Trump Turning Anti-AI

Arthur Hayes:

If the opposition party can harness this fear, it gains two potent messages: first, Republican-instigated war causing vicious inflation; second, AI expansion tacitly endorsed—and funded—by Republican politicians. So my theory is: if Trump wants to pull a rabbit out of a hat, the only issue he can flip is AI. He picks up the Democratic microphone and declares: “We’ll impose stricter oversight on data centers—we’ll create a national AI dividend and tax them accordingly.” That’s classic Trump rhetoric—he can say all sorts of things; whether he follows through post-November is another matter. I believe this is their sole viable path to victory—positioning themselves as the party protecting Americans from AI’s harms, making voters forget Republicans bankrolled it all, because people are forgetful. So I see this as the primary risk.

Trump’s willingness to attack AI depends entirely on oil prices—which, in turn, reflect the reflexive dynamic between him and the IRGC. The longer this war drags on without resolution, the greater the commodity pressure building toward future price spikes—and the more likely Trump is to scapegoat AI to win the election—or at least keep the House. Clearly, taxation and regulation pose the greatest threat to the AI narrative. We’ve already seen this in South Korea, where a politician proposed a national AI tax—and Cosby crashed immediately. So if such rhetoric starts emanating publicly from the ruling party—especially Trump himself—the AI bubble will peak, at least over the next several months until the election—and drag crypto markets down with it. That’s the core thesis. I truly didn’t want to think about this anymore—so last week, I liquidated my entire portfolio.

New Portfolio Allocation

Host Kyle Chasse: Where are most of your liquid assets now—cash or Treasuries?

Arthur Hayes:

Treasuries and energy stocks.

Host Kyle Chasse: Do you still believe energy stocks will hold up if the AI bubble bursts?

Arthur Hayes:

We still need oil—whether you like it or not. People need oil—it powers civilization. And I’m not saying AI won’t keep growing—the issue is the market’s declining willingness to pay forward multiples for that growth, causing asset prices to fall. That doesn’t mean these companies won’t generate handsome profits—just that they won’t be as spectacular as expected, prompting us to sell. That’s the logic.

The Math Behind the AI Capex Bubble

Arthur Hayes:

I trade on instinct and gut feel—not deep analysis. I sense we’re at some stage of the AI bubble—I just don’t know which stage. Over the weekend, I listened to Marco Papovich’s podcast—he’s BCA’s strategist, runs a great YouTube channel called Geopolitical Cousins (highly recommended). He’s made this point both on-air and in writing: when you invest in AI, you’re not investing in earnings—you’re investing in data center capex. I often forget this myself: you’re betting on the second derivative—the acceleration or deceleration of a trend. If the trend accelerates, you’ll pay infinite multiples for future revenue; if it decelerates, you won’t—and growth won’t accelerate as fast as you’d hoped.

He recently published a chart tracking the second derivative of capex growth—the larger the number, the harder acceleration becomes. We’re already at $800 billion in AI capex for 2026; he forecasts the second derivative will begin slowing in 2027. You simply cannot justify valuing SpaceX—or any AI company—at 100x sales while both profitability and capex decelerate. Even if revenues keep rising, that’s not the point—the point is how fast growth accelerates or decelerates, and how you perceive that rate of change. Mathematically, thanks to the law of large numbers, capex growth cannot continue at 2023–2026 levels—it’s physically impossible. So when will markets discount that future reality—realizing they no longer want to pay 50x, 60x, or 70x P/E for AI stocks or supply-chain companies? When will markets recognize that opposition parties worldwide are leveraging this sentiment—“Screw data-center-driven inflation, screw AI taking my job”? Why are only Elon, Sam Altman, Zuckerberg, and maybe fifteen others becoming trillionaires—privatizing humanity’s collective knowledge—while I get nothing? This isn’t uniquely American—it’s global: if AI is trained on human interaction data, legally and illegally harvesting public and private data, why should they monopolize the profits? For those wealthy enough to participate in these equity stories, it’s a legitimate question.

Someday, markets will feel a backlash. Capital and labor will always clash—voluntarily or not—until some agreement inevitably emerges. If you hold those assets when that agreement arrives, you’ll usually get crushed. These thoughts kept swirling in my head—so I sat down, tried to make sense of what was happening—and spent an entire morning liquidating everything.

Why Bitcoin Has Underperformed AI

Host Kyle Chasse: How do you see markets evolving from now through year-end?

Arthur Hayes:

To answer that, I’ve been asking myself another question: why hasn’t Bitcoin risen much higher since November 2022? I’ve repeated this on your show and elsewhere: it’s all about liquidity. If future liquidity expands, Bitcoin should rise. Yet clearly, that’s wrong—because since ChatGPT’s commercialization on November 30, 2022, Bitcoin has risen—but NVIDIA and AI stocks rose far more. When did Bitcoin peak? Last October—at $125,000. So where did all that liquidity go? My models suggest trillions were created—so why hasn’t Bitcoin hit $500,000 or $1 million? Why has it underperformed AI?

I typically ignore where money flows—I just say “more money means Bitcoin should rise,” a lazy heuristic that worked historically but fails now. So I revisited my mental model: what did I miss? Answer: we all believe AI may be the most transformative technology ever—and massive, trillion-dollar capex is underway. But how much debt has AI consumed? Has AI effectively crowded out all other risk assets—hoovering up excess liquidity first?

At a high level, I usually avoid M2—it’s too crude—but let’s use it as an example. Since ChatGPT’s launch, U.S. M2 has grown by at least $1.5 trillion. I asked reliable Perplexity AI: how much debt went to AI and AI-related firms? Estimate: ~$1.5 trillion—with $1.3 trillion concentrated in 2025–2026. So while the AI frenzy ignited in late 2022, the capital markets’ debt suction pump only ramped up recently—very much backend-weighted.

My theory: Bitcoin rebounded from lows because liquidity expanded—and AI hadn’t yet consumed much of it pre-2025, giving Bitcoin ample room to ride that wave. From 2022 to mid-2025, falling reverse repo balances and other factors helped. But AI capex and loan charts show real acceleration starting in 2025—especially 2026. That’s precisely when Bitcoin struggled—peaking last October, then falling 50–60%. So if all liquidity flows to AI—and shows no signs of stopping—then if an AI correction or bust occurs, investors won’t suddenly flood Bitcoin with fresh capital. They’ll sell AI—and Bitcoin—and everything else. When bubbles burst, correlations hit 1—everything falls together—until dust settles, then certain assets start outperforming.

Thus, if I believe AI will undergo a major correction over the next six months—driven by oil prices and U.S. politics—Bitcoin won’t escape. It should perform better post-correction—but you must endure the downturn first. That’s why I see no favorable environment for Bitcoin or crypto right now. And yes—I exited NEAR, HYPE, Worldcoin, and Zcash profitably. I’m locking in those gains and sitting on the sidelines. These assets may rally further—but in my mental model, current risks—known unknowns and how they might evolve—make me uncomfortable holding them. That’s why I stepped away.

The SpaceX IPO Trap

Host Kyle Chasse: Another thing I’ve been pondering: the S&P 500 is rising, yet most stocks are falling—the index is propped up by a handful of tech names. More importantly, OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX IPOs loom—potentially injecting over $4 trillion in new market cap. Could these IPOs drain liquidity for a while? What’s your take on their trajectories?

Arthur Hayes:

I doubt they’ll perform well—because markets don’t just want them to trade normally. Markets expect IPOs to surge 50%, delivering an absurdly outsized gain—proving the market still believes in AI, picked the right star company, and expects its trajectory to remain unstoppable. At ~$1.8 trillion, SpaceX instantly becomes the world’s seventh-largest company. To rise 50%, it would need to surpass Amazon. Read its S-1 filing—SpaceX trades near 100x price-to-sales. It’s utterly absurd—it’ll be the world’s seventh-largest company, yet has proven nothing.

Yes, the concept is brilliant—space-based data centers, policy hurdles facing terrestrial ones—and I agree that logic holds. I follow Semi Analysis’ Substack—they do deep semiconductor and AI research. They published a piece comparing full costs of space vs. ground data centers, concluding: operating data centers in space currently costs four times more than on land. Plus, we lack sufficient chips for Elon’s vision—and terrestrial data centers remain buildable. Building on land may not be as easy as hoped—but it’s four times cheaper, so you’ll choose land until you absolutely can’t. Even optimistically, space data centers won’t reach cost parity with terrestrial ones for at least a decade.

So the absurd reality is: global capital willingly pays 100x price-to-sales for a company whose product costs four times more than competitors’, whose rockets explode, and which won’t generate real cash flow for a decade.

Worse still, this mirrors a classic crypto scam pattern: low circulating supply, inflated fully diluted valuation. Only 4–5% circulates now—rising to ~25% by September—while insiders dump shares continuously from July through October. And it trades as the world’s seventh-largest company—having proven nothing on the data center thesis. Its satellite internet business is excellent—but that’s not why you buy SpaceX.

So I doubt it meets market expectations. I’m not saying it’ll crash—but even a 10% gain will trigger disappointment: “That’s not good enough—I expected 50%, 60%, 70%.” Investors will then question: with insiders increasingly able to dump shares, should I really compete for Anthropic or OpenAI’s September IPO?

Setting the price so high creates near-impossible expectations. If it were a $100 billion company, doubling or tripling would validate AI—and SpaceX’s surge would reflect smart, lower initial valuation. But this is maximum extraction—$1.8 trillion. Outperforming NVIDIA? Extremely difficult. Sorry, Elon—you won’t beat Jensen. I don’t know Amazon’s current CEO—but you won’t beat these companies either. They have real revenue, operational track records, and proven business models. SpaceX’s entire data center vision remains scribbled on napkins. Given time, it may prove valid—but would you really push a $1.8 trillion stock up 50%? It’s extraordinarily difficult. That’s why I believe this event could severely undermine belief in the AI narrative—simply because its scale makes upside nearly impossible.

Host Kyle Chasse: How will liquidity flow during these IPOs? Will capital massively rotate—or will it be “first-seller-wins,” like Elon?

Arthur Hayes:

It’ll be the former. People will get excited—and pull liquidity from other assets. If SpaceX disappoints, Anthropic and OpenAI will face immense pressure to lower their IPO pricing. If these AI giants are forced to slash valuations—or shrink fundraising—before listing, that creates a catastrophically bad precedent: official self-deprecation, softly signaling the AI bubble is overinflated and future expectations must be scaled back. Suddenly, expectations reset—and investors hesitate: “Why did they lower pricing after SpaceX? Why shrink the offering?” All these shifts could cool investor enthusiasm. So liquidity may rotate from other assets—or investors may simply cool on the AI bull story, gradually exiting—and triggering a cascade of price declines.

Evidence Supporting the Anti-AI Strategy

Host Kyle Chasse: Let’s return to Trump’s anti-AI narrative. Some may argue AI leaders helped elect him—or at least played a major role. We know he hosted multiple private dinners and discussions with them—they’re his top donors and supporters—and he’s consistently praised AI publicly.

I haven’t tallied how many people openly oppose AI—I know most lack warm, fuzzy feelings about it—so this pivot could indeed be quite clever. But I’ve never heard anyone propose it—it’s a bold prediction. How confident are you? Any signals suggesting he’ll go this route?

Arthur Hayes:

I used Perplexity AI again—asking: “Polymarket says Republicans will lose—any path to victory?” First, grasp the underlying political logic: why is Trump obsessed with retaining the House in midterms? Not for lofty ideology—it’s pure political self-preservation. If Democrats seize the House, he and his family face mountains of congressional subpoenas for two years straight. Democrats can hound him relentlessly. He’d have zero chance to build the legacy he envisions for a “Trump second term.” That’s why he must win.

I also believe Trump has no ideology—he only cares about winning. During the pandemic, he delivered the largest fiscal transfer since the New Deal—checks mailed to every American, no income cutoffs, rampant fraud, rich and poor alike received payments. So don’t assume he won’t embrace naked populism—directly appealing to popular sentiment, which opposes AI. AI triggers negative sentiment among both Republican and Democratic voters. So I asked AI: “Assuming seat projections are correct, exclude districts gerrymandered to guarantee wins. Still, Republicans need more seats to retain the House.”

So I asked: “In all competitive, swing-districts—within polling margins—do any local laws restrict or ban data center construction? Search all such districts.” Result: If Trump pivots anti-AI, he can flip enough seats to win the House—because these districts have already demonstrated bipartisan local resistance: residents don’t want data centers in their communities—and have taken local action.

And again—this is purely rhetoric. Trump wouldn’t need to act. He could call Jensen and AI leaders: “Listen, I’ll come down hard on you for the next four months—don’t panic. Nothing happens after November.” He’s done this before. He attacks them, stocks fall, some lose money. Look at his tariff moves—his hedge fund friends lost billions trying to navigate his attempts to rewrite U.S. trade infrastructure. He pulled back at the last minute—but proved he’s willing to try.

So if his political strategists see anti-AI rhetoric delivers enough votes—even just rhetorical action—I see no reason he’d resist. The only victims are stock markets—and the losers are just wealthy people. You don’t even need to act—you’re just speaking, no bills pass. Post-November, it’s back to “We must win the AI race against China.” So I believe this is a viable path for Republicans to win—especially since the inflation narrative is locked in and unchangeable. I don’t care if oil drops 50%—gas prices may dip slightly, but too many supply-chain items are already en route—shelves will be pricier by October—and Trump can do almost nothing.

The Fed, Waller, and Rate Risk

Host Kyle Chasse: Let’s discuss Waller. I know there’s little certainty yet—his first FOMC meeting isn’t until next week. Based on prior statements and the looming midterms, what’s your read on his policy stance?

Arthur Hayes:

I don’t recall his latest speech verbatim—but one narrative claims: “You can look past wartime commodity inflation and believe AI productivity miracles will deliver growth without inflation—thus enabling rate cuts.” That’s the Waller narrative markets want to believe. The unfortunate reality: oil prices are higher and won’t fall soon. The 2-year Treasury yield sits ~60 bps above the effective federal funds rate. Markets tell the Fed: “You need to hike.” That’s the message—whether they act is unknown.

I also believe Trump may privately temper his rate-cut fixation—if he wants to address cost-of-living pressures, the worst thing he could do is urge the Fed to cut rates amid 3.5–4% inflation. If he genuinely cares about winning over cost-sensitive voters, rate cuts would doom him in midterms. So given market positioning, Waller cutting rates would be extremely difficult. My baseline is “on hold”—the question is tone: hawkish pause or dovish pause? A hawkish pause implies mounting inflation pressure and future Fed action—markets discount that: “They’ll hike eventually.” Bubbles fear nothing more than rising rates—higher funding costs inevitably drive participants away from this casino.

So I see virtually no chance of rate cuts—most likely “on hold,” with tone determining impact. The Fed has few paths to support the bubble—oil has pushed 2-year yields above the effective funds rate, widening spreads and lifting yields across the curve. I see no room for Waller to cut. If rate-cut expectations underpin your AI-bubble optimism, you should deeply question that assumption.

Crypto Catalysts and Re-entry Timing

Host Kyle Chasse: Between now and midterms, could anything provide short-term relief or a bounce? Not market manipulation—but any narrative or unfolding event that might spark a rally from now through year-end?

Arthur Hayes:

Maybe people believe MicroStrategy will somehow keep pumping—that could reignite bullish sentiment—but I see little evidence of new money creation—and even if it happens, it flows straight into AI infrastructure. So I see no major positive catalyst pulling crypto from this slump—or at least letting it outperform AI. Because if we returned to that perfect economic sweet spot—high growth, low inflation—what would you buy? NVIDIA or Bitcoin? You’d unquestionably pick NVIDIA—or Samsung, right? Because they’ve surged 50x in two years. Would you buy Bitcoin? Of course not. That’s the problem—AI has performed too well. If conditions stay the same—and these assets keep performing—why choose crypto? You’d keep betting on capex growing 100% annually—and buying these companies endlessly. Is that sustainable?

That’s precisely the market’s current belief. But if I were an institutional investor and clients said, “The Nasdaq rose 50%—why did you only rise 10%?”—“Because I hedged—I bought volatility, etc.”—clients reply: “Why give money to a manager up 10% when I can get 50% elsewhere?” That’s the logic consuming everyone—“Maximize returns—why aren’t you participating?” That’s the problem.

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

Arthur Hayes:

If oil stays tame this fall—no sharp rise—and Trump doesn’t turn on AI titans—I may re-enter, looking for value. But all this hinges on an extremely strict precondition: over the coming months, SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI’s epic IPOs must open spectacularly—even shatter all historical records—to match the largest IPO issuance ever. When reality diverges from expectation, trouble begins.

Host Kyle Chasse: Can we gauge when crypto might enter its next bull market?

Arthur Hayes:

We need more money printing—and that money must not flow entirely into AI. When will that happen? I don’t know—but it’s certainly not happening now. As you’ve often said, governments’ only way out of self-inflicted crises is money printing—it’s inevitable. Can we pinpoint the timeline—or the catalyst triggering it? If the AI bubble bursts and financial institutions collapse, bailouts follow. When? Unknown. But that’s when crypto can outperform—AI has suffered a credibility collapse—not that it vanishes, but its explosive growth stalls, forcing investors to trade something else. I hope that “something else” is crypto—and that liquidity flows back accordingly.

I firmly believe the answer is always money printing—the question is timing. Bitcoin has been humanity’s best-performing asset over the past 15 years. Unfortunately, many didn’t buy at $0.01—they bought at other prices. If you entered during the ETF era, you’re likely underwater on average. Everything depends on path dependency—and when you entered. Just because you bought six months ago doesn’t mean Bitcoin owes you gains. I think that’s a harsh lesson many need to learn.