Wavering in the Fire: The True Face of Cryptocurrency in Macroeconomic Turmoil

The clouds of war over the Strait of Hormuz have been thick for over a week. As Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats carve white streaks across the Persian Gulf and U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups remain silently on standby in the Gulf of Oman, the global capital markets are experiencing a storm of multiple variables — and virtual currencies, once dubbed "digital gold," are undergoing an unprecedented test in this storm.

The U.S.-Iran conflict continues to escalate, with the de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz entering its eighth day. This vital global energy artery handles about 20% of the world's oil shipments, and its disruption is triggering chain reactions: Brent crude stabilizes at $85, global shipping costs surge, and the shadow of supply chain interruption once again looms over the world economy. More alarming news comes from the International Atomic Energy Agency: Iran has begun injecting uranium gas into new centrifuges, with enrichment levels approaching 60%, just a step away from weapons-grade. The window for diplomatic resolution is closing — this warning has made markets realize that this crisis could evolve from a "strait blockade" into a "nuclear threshold crisis."

In the face of this storm, the cryptocurrency market presents a complex and contradictory picture. On the weekend of March 2, when traditional markets were closed, cryptocurrencies became the only liquid assets available for trading, absorbing all selling pressure — Bitcoin once fell below $63,000, with over 150,000 investors forced to liquidate within 24 hours. Yet just a few days later, Bitcoin rebounded strongly, approaching $74,000. This sharp fluctuation prompts market participants to ponder: what role does Bitcoin really play?

Historical data shows that Bitcoin's performance during past wars has not been very promising: on the day the Russia-Ukraine war broke out in 2022, Bitcoin plunged over 9%; during the outbreak of the Israel-Palestine conflict in 2023, Bitcoin declined about 2%; during Iran's airstrikes on Israel in April 2024, Bitcoin fell roughly 7%. These figures indicate that, at least in the initial moments of panic, Bitcoin did not serve as a safe haven but rather acted as a release valve for liquidity pressure. Experts point out that in emergencies, some may sell Bitcoin to exchange for fiat currency to buy daily necessities; rising oil prices also prompted some groups to sell assets for liquidity. More critically, high leverage in the derivatives market triggered a "death spiral" — once selling begins, falling prices cause massive margin calls, leading to further forced liquidations and intensifying selling pressure.

But the flip side is: when panic-driven liquidations subside and risk appetite stabilizes, Bitcoin tends to rebound quickly, even faster than stocks. This was exactly what happened on March 5 — as the situation did not further spiral out of control, Bitcoin rapidly regained ground, approaching $74,000. This "sharp drop followed by a rebound" pattern underscores Bitcoin's unique positioning amid macro shocks: it is both a pressure release valve and a liquidity indicator.

Meanwhile, macro factors are injecting new variables into the market. The US dollar index broke through 108, reaching a new high since November last year. A strong dollar usually signals tightening global liquidity, putting pressure on cryptocurrencies. However, data shows that US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw over $800 million in net inflows within a week of the conflict breaking out, with $458 million flowing in on March 2 alone. The continued inflow of institutional funds contrasts sharply with retail panic selling, revealing profound changes in market structure.

Rising oil prices are also reshaping inflation expectations. The US 5-year breakeven inflation rate has risen to 2.65%, up 20 basis points from before the conflict. If inflation continues to rise while economic growth slows, the risk of stagflation will emerge — a macro environment that challenges traditional asset valuation models but may create unique opportunities for "non-sovereign currencies" like Bitcoin. BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes even predicts: "The longer the US intervenes in Iran, the more likely the Federal Reserve is to cut rates or print money to support war expenses, which could drive Bitcoin prices higher."

From a broader perspective, this war is testing Bitcoin's "digital gold" credentials. In terms of supply logic, Bitcoin is highly similar to gold — capped supply, halving mechanism, mining costs — giving it "institutionalized scarcity." But in terms of asset attributes, the differences are significant: gold is supported by jewelry and industrial demand, while Bitcoin's value is primarily derived from store-of-value consensus. When a true storm hits, these differences are clearly perceived by the market — gold remains firmly at historic highs, while Bitcoin swings wildly.

Perhaps the most accurate positioning of Bitcoin is not as "digital gold" or "pure risk asset," but as a new evolving species. In extreme scenarios like currency collapse and capital controls, it has indeed demonstrated safe-haven functions — for example, during Greece's capital controls in 2015, local Bitcoin exchanges saw a roughly 400% increase in new customers within a month. But more often, it remains a high-risk asset deeply tied to global liquidity.

The fires in the Strait of Hormuz will eventually subside in some way. But the lessons left by this crisis will resonate in the cryptocurrency market for a long time. For investors, perhaps the most important thing is not predicting the course of the war, but understanding the deep changes in asset pricing logic — what is Bitcoin telling us when its movements diverge from gold? How is the market structure changing as institutions buy on dips and retail panic-sells?

In this era of information explosion and increased volatility, staying alert, continuing to learn, and maintaining reverence for uncertainty may be the best strategies to navigate through the fog. #美伊局势影响