Post

Oil prices fell 10% this week, BTC stands above 64K: The market is pricing in the "best-case scenario," but geopolitics never follows the script Have you been pretty happy these past couple of days? BTC has risen above $64,000, climbing for several consecutive days. Oil prices have plummeted, inflation should cool down, right? The Fed should ease up, right? Stop. Don’t pop the champagne just yet. Over the past week, Brent crude oil dropped from above $100 to around $83, a nearly 10% weekly decline. At the same time, Bitcoin rebounded from below $63,000 to reclaim $64,000. This drop and rise seem to perfectly correspond— Oil price falls → inflation expectations cool → Fed’s rate hike pressure eases → BTC rises. The logic is sound. But the question is: how long can this logic last? First, let’s look at why oil prices fell. The core reason: The Strait of Hormuz is about to reopen. US officials say Iran and Oman have made substantial progress in negotiations over navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, with an agreement expected soon. Iran’s Foreign Ministry also acknowledged that the talks were "professional and productive," and both sides have agreed on the geographic coordinates of the proposed new shipping route. Once the agreement is finalized, millions of barrels of Middle Eastern oil could return to the market. The US Central Command revealed that since resuming the blockade on Iran, 49 commercial vessels have been rerouted. Lifting the blockade would return a large volume of oil supply to the market. Oil prices fell because the market is pricing in the "best-case scenario"—the strait reopens, supply recovers, inflation cools. BTC rising above 64,000 is trading on the same scenario. Geopolitical easing → oil price falls → inflation expectations cool → US Treasury yields decline → risk assets rebound. The logic chain couldn’t be clearer. But here’s the problem—will this "best-case scenario" really play out? Let me pour three buckets of cold water on this. First bucket: Iran says the agreement doesn’t mean the strait will open. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei clearly stated: reaching an agreement does not mean the Strait of Hormuz will resume safe navigation. He bluntly said—the strait’s closure stems from US and Israeli military actions against Iran, and the US maritime blockade remains, so the security situation in the strait has not fundamentally improved. In plain language: the agreement is signed, but whether it opens depends on US actions. Iranian media also reported that the agreement is unrelated to "immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz." The strait’s opening depends on the US changing its previous violations. The market is pricing in "imminent reopening," but Iran says "we’ll see." There’s a huge gap between these positions. Second bucket: The Iranian parliament is reviewing a bill to permanently ban US and Israeli ships from passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Violators face fines up to 20% of the cargo’s value. On one side, US officials say "agreement is near," while on the other, Iran’s parliament says "we’re legislating to ban US and Israeli ships." Which do you think is true? Third bucket: The agreement details remain undecided. Who controls the shipping lanes? Will there be fees? How much? Will the US lift the blockade on Iranian ports? All questions remain unanswered. The US wants "free passage with no fees." Iran wants to charge 5% to 7% of cargo value. How big is the gap? One side wants a free ride; the other wants payment. They’re separated by a whole negotiation table. What’s worse? The agreement isn’t signed yet, and three ships of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company were attacked this week while passing through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Iran attacked "hostile targets" in the strait on Thursday. Negotiating on one hand, fighting on the other. This is the Middle East. A senior investment officer at Bank of America put it bluntly: "An agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz remains difficult to reach, and investors are in a wait-and-see mode. Shipping volumes remain low, and the path to a lasting agreement is unclear." To be frank: This BTC rebound is essentially a technical recovery driven by geopolitical easing, not a full bull market restart. Spot trading volume remains weak, and Coinbase premium has been negative for about 80 days—indicating low buying pressure from US institutions in the spot market. BTC is oscillating around 64,000 without forming a clear directional trend. This week, BTC rose from 63,000 to 64,000, a $1,000 gain. But if the agreement falls through and oil prices surge back to 100, how many days will that $1,000 hold? Watch these three signals closely: First, will the agreement be signed? US officials say "soon," but "soon" means "a few days" on Wall Street and "several months" in the Middle East. Second, will the Iranian parliament pass the bill banning US and Israeli ships? If passed, any agreement is meaningless. Third, will oil prices rebound or continue to fall? Brent settled at $83.55 today, but if the agreement fails, a single missile could push it back to 100. The market is pricing in the "best-case scenario." But geopolitics never follows the script. The script says "peace." Reality says "uncertainty." $BTC $BZ $CL #霍尔木兹谈判取得进展，油价风险降温了吗？