Author: Kyle Chasse

Translation by: Aki Wu on Blockchain

In this interview, BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes discusses macro policies, liquidity, and the pricing of crypto assets. He analyzes and predicts that the U.S. will enter a phase of simultaneous interest rate cuts and fiscal expansion; stablecoins, as "price-insensitive buyers" of U.S. Treasuries, will weaken the Federal Reserve's power; funds will be transmitted on-chain through stablecoins, favoring DeFi protocols with repurchase, dividends, and verifiable cash flows. Bitcoin is viewed as a core asset to hedge against fiat currency devaluation, and he also shares insights on Hyperliquid's growth path, token unlock risks, and the capital operations of "digital asset treasury stocks."

Statement: This article is a transcription of a video, and readers can obtain more information through the link. If the author has any objections to the form of reproduction, please contact us, and we will make modifications as per the author's request. Reproduction is for information sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice, nor does it represent Wu's views and positions.

Monetary Policy Outlook: Will the Federal Reserve Cut Rates by 25 or 50 Basis Points?

Arthur Hayes: I haven't looked at the latest position of the 2-year U.S. Treasury today, but over the past week and a half to two weeks, following the non-farm payroll (NFP) release and the downward revision of U.S. employment data, the 2-year yield has roughly declined by 50–60 basis points, and the PPI two days ago was below expectations. Additionally, Powell has clearly shifted at Jackson Hole, opening the door for rate cuts. I tend to think the probability of a 50 basis point cut at this meeting is higher. I also believe that Trump and his supporters would prefer a more aggressive easing, which is why he continues to pressure decision-makers.

I believe that, like every U.S. president before him, each president ultimately achieves the monetary policy they desire. There are historical precedents for this: Lyndon B. Johnson reportedly pressured then-Fed Chair William McChesney Martin for rate cuts in person at his Texas home; Nixon applied comprehensive pressure on Arthur Burns (in coordination with Treasury Secretary John Connally) to ensure rates went down. Trump's hard pressure on Powell is similar. Like previous Fed officials, Powell will ultimately provide the monetary policy that the political sphere desires: lower rates. It may take longer than you think, but the direction will not change.

Therefore, I believe we are already in a rate-cutting cycle. Although I personally judge that inflation will remain sticky for the next 18–24 months; if you do not hold hard assets like gold or Bitcoin, or stocks that perform well in the U.S. market, you will feel the pressure of higher inflation.

Kyle Chasse: So your judgment is that rate cuts will continue all the way to 2026. How will this progress? How many times?

Arthur Hayes: Ultimately, the number of times doesn't matter. Bessent and Trump need to increase the money supply to support their agenda, so the Federal Reserve will cut rates. Even if they do not directly restart QE, they will "print money" in various ways: perhaps through the mortgage market, perhaps through bank credit, perhaps through various arrangements made by Trump with foreign sovereign wealth funds, and they may also leverage about a hundred billion dollars of "equity capital" allocated to the Department of Defense (DoD) to invest in resource companies like MP Materials to address several structural issues. In short, there are too many paths to provide credit; of course, the degree of benefit will vary across different sectors. The advantage of Bitcoin is that we do not care where this money specifically flows. As long as there are more and more dollars, renminbi, euros, and yen, these fiat currencies are depreciating; and since we hold a fixed-supply asset, its price may trend upwards asymptotically.

Is Bitcoin Really Prioritized Over the "Halving Cycle" in the "Business Cycle"?

Kyle Chasse: We recently heard an interesting perspective. The crypto market often talks about a "four-year cycle," believing that Bitcoin generally operates along the rhythm of "halving." But another view is that Bitcoin actually follows the "business cycle," and it is expected to reach its conclusion in the coming months. The reasoning behind this judgment is mainly due to insufficient disposable income for retail investors, signs of slowing consumption, and weakening employment; once this happens, corporate profits will be pressured, the stock market will decline, and the overall market may experience a systemic pullback. Do you think we will reach the end of this bull market this year, or will it continue to extend?

Arthur Hayes: I believe we are entering the "mid-stage" of this cycle. Think about it: Trump, as a president who may return to office after the Biden administration (for a second term), has a highly populist style. During COVID, he implemented cash relief checks, making the largest "direct benefits to the public" move since Andrew Jackson (or more aptly, Lyndon B. Johnson, LBJ). This is not the traditional Republican fiscal approach—keeping people at home (he referred to the pandemic as "the flu") while stabilizing the situation by distributing money.

This approach demonstrates his political instinct: to win elections without being bound by ideology. Winning elections means continuously providing direct benefits to the public. He did this during COVID; he did it again in 2017 with massive tax cuts; and he will continue to do so. Otherwise, Trump and the Republicans will face the risk of being voted out in 2026 (midterm elections) and 2028 (presidential election). So he is very clear about his path: continue to "send money" (direct benefits) and "print money."

Clearly, certain individuals within the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government bureaucracy have been hindering his progress. But the dominoes are being knocked down one by one—by mid-next year, the Federal Reserve will fully pivot: Powell's stance will be more consistent, and he may control 4 votes among the 7 governors; additionally, he can operate through unconventional adjustments like interest on reserves and the discount window. Bessent is advancing transactions with sovereign wealth funds, which may end regulatory custody and add about $4–5 trillion in mortgage-related credit supply—allowing residents to re-leverage their housing. Therefore, if residents run out of cash, what will American consumers do? They will take out loans. And if I lower the cost of funds (interest rates), they can borrow more. That is why "the price of funds" is crucial in this scenario.

Of course, I personally place more importance on the quantity of money. But I can also understand: even if one believes that U.S. households are over-leveraged and the housing market is slightly overheated, if I lower the interest rate from 4.5% to 2%, then households will leverage up, buy more stocks, max out credit cards, buy new cars, and take out home equity loans. If you believe the Federal Reserve is about to cut rates and that Trump will release liquidity in the Fed's balance sheet and the mortgage market, it is too shortsighted to explain the outlook solely with "weak consumption."

Another point that is often overlooked: Wells Fargo has recently been "paroled." Since the early years of the fake accounts scandal, it has not been allowed to expand its balance sheet for years. I can't recall the details, but I remember that in mid-June or early July of this year, regulators finally allowed it to expand its assets. Zoltan Pozsar (a well-known macro analyst) estimates that Wells Fargo currently has about $450–500 billion of balance sheet capacity available to purchase U.S. Treasuries and other bonds. This means that the U.S. commercial banking system has gained another liquidity engine. So, I do not care how outsiders describe the so-called "real economy"; I focus on credit, and credit flows—ultimately flowing to Bitcoin.

Gold and Stablecoins: Are De-dollarization and "Re-dollarization" Happening Simultaneously?

Arthur Hayes: I wrote an article titled "Buffalo Bill" and gave a presentation on it at the WebX conference in Tokyo. My core point is that Bessent faces a problem called de-dollarization. In 2008, the U.S. government effectively defaulted (essentially choosing another path) and decided to bail out the banking system instead of allowing credit contraction to clear bad debts from the system. So overseas creditors are thinking: since the U.S. no longer maintains the value of its currency, why should I hold these bonds? I want to buy gold. You can see that the proportion of gold in foreign exchange reserves held by central banks has been rising steadily since 2009.

Ultimately, the Southern Hemisphere and BRICS, as suppliers of resources and labor, produce goods that the Western world needs; their era of selling things cheaply to the U.S. and Western Europe has ended. They will ask: since you are depreciating your currency at about 8% compounded annually, why should I work so hard to accumulate this asset? I might as well buy gold. Therefore, Bessent will ask: who will buy the government bonds I need to issue? During Trump's term, the federal deficit did not decrease; instead, it expanded (as I expected). And to deliver benefits to the public, spending will only increase. So who will buy these bonds? For a long time, no one will want to take them because of duration risk, interest rate risk, and the surge in supply. Therefore, he cannot issue 5, 10, or 30-year bonds at the scale he desires and has to turn to the short end, which is the T-Bill (short-term Treasury bill) market. The balance of reverse repurchase agreements (RRP) was around $2.5 trillion. His predecessor Janet Yellen (or one of her team members) decided to increase T-bill issuance to "suck" that money back into the system. Starting in September 2022, this was equivalent to a $2.5 trillion "stimulus"; at that time, against the backdrop of Powell continuing quantitative tightening (QT) and raising interest rates, Yellen's actions substantially boosted the market—crypto, gold, and stocks all rose. But that wave has ended. Next, who will take these T-bills?—Bessent needs to issue tens of thousands of billions every year.

The first will be the Eurodollar market. There is a large stock of offshore dollars that is not under the direct control of the U.S. federal government, and they may be doing things that the U.S. government does not want them to do—such as financing projects that China wants to promote, rather than those that Trump wants to promote. So why wouldn't they buy U.S. T-bills?

My hypothesis is that Bessent can remove the "implicit guarantee" on Eurodollar deposits. Historically, when the banking system (outside the U.S.) has problems, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have quickly come to the rescue, opening dollar swap lines to ensure that banks holding offshore dollars in Europe and elsewhere have liquidity and do not default. — If this implicit guarantee is removed, what should I, as someone holding dollar deposits in foreign banks, do?

I can hold stablecoins. Stablecoins are essentially "backed" by the U.S. government: dollar-pegged stablecoins represented by Tether and Circle either keep funds in regulated U.S. commercial banks (if they are "too big to fail" like JPMorgan, Citibank, etc., there is an implicit government guarantee) or invest in T-bills. Moreover, after the regional banking crisis in 2023, we can almost consider that all deposits in the U.S. banking system are effectively guaranteed by the government. Therefore, if I deposit 1 dollar in a U.S. bank, there will be no situation where it "disappears"—the government will always bail out the banks. If I hold T-bills, that is a liability of the U.S. government; and the U.S. government has a dollar printing machine that can theoretically print money in unlimited quantities and at nearly zero cost.

If the underlying assets of stablecoins are legally mandated to be bank deposits or T-bills (for example, through the GENIUS Act or other legislation), then my money is equivalent to being guaranteed by the U.S. government; conversely, if the implicit guarantee of offshore dollar deposits is removed, the risk is higher. You have already seen European strategists worrying: if Trump disagrees with their geopolitical orientation, will he cut off the dollar swap lines with the ECB or other central banks? Trump has previously threatened similar actions—this is indeed something to be wary of.

Secondly, there is a large global population that actually "wants dollars," which is one of the reasons Tether has become popular worldwide. In the U.S., Tether is not as popular because Americans already hold dollars, have bank accounts, and dollar transfers are relatively convenient and low-cost. However, in Latin America or emerging markets in Asia, local currencies often experience high inflation, and deposit rates are lower than nominal GDP growth rates, leading to the erosion of residents' real purchasing power by the banking system and political circles. What they need is dollars (if still priced in fiat). However, regulators do not want you to hold dollars directly; they prefer to dilute your wealth through local currency inflation. Therefore, they restrict large foreign banks from entering and providing dollar-denominated banking services. So what can be done?

Almost everyone has a Facebook account and a Twitter/X account. The super apps of Western tech giants are now likely to be "greenlit" to provide banking-like services. You will see payments launched on WhatsApp, and you will also see payments launched on X. If local regulators complain, "We are losing control over residents' funds," because Zuckerberg, Musk, and Bezos have "control" over these funds through their respective applications—

Then Trump will sanction them: "You don't want American tech companies to operate freely in your country? Your companies operate in the U.S., and we will impose a 100% tariff on you." For example, Asian political elites, who may have siphoned money from their own citizens, likely have those funds in high-net-worth accounts at JPMorgan—I'll sanction you too. The result is: unless you unconditionally allow our large tech companies to operate in your country, your access to dollars will be cut off.

Thus, those in the Global South who want "dollar accounts" but are blocked by local regulations will be concentrated and "connected": T-bills (or other dollar assets) will be allocated to them, and whether it is a 1%, 2%, or 3% yield, it is significantly better than holding high-inflation currencies like the Philippine peso or Argentine peso. This is what I refer to as the approximately $34 trillion TAM (Total Addressable Market)—the potential pool of funds that could flow into stablecoins.

From a geopolitical perspective, Bessent and Trump are advancing this in their interest. You have seen them making a big push for stablecoins. There was a report submitted to the U.S. Treasury (I can't recall the specific month) estimating that about $2 trillion would flow into stablecoins, explaining the operational mechanism to the Treasury. Clearly, they believe this is beneficial for U.S. monetary policy. Next, they will let the private sector extend the "tentacles" of stablecoins globally, and these funds will flow back to purchase T-bills—this is the ultimate goal. They do not care about "innovation"; the core is to have price-insensitive buyers take U.S. Treasury securities. This is my overall conclusion about stablecoins.

Clearly, all of this will transmit to DeFi. Once I hold stablecoins, I have the underlying building blocks of DeFi "Legos": I can lend, leverage, trade, etc. At this point, I will also be familiar with using digital wallets, and using MetaMask, Phantom, etc., in the global DeFi ecosystem will become very natural. This will also boost some projects I mentioned in the article, such as Ethena, EtherFi, Hyperliquid, Codex, etc. In short, this is my macro framework regarding the layout of stablecoins and DeFi protocols.

In the "34 trillion dollar entry" scenario, do stablecoins marginalize the Federal Reserve?

Arthur Hayes: I assume that about $10 trillion of stablecoin supply will circulate in the market. Taking the protocols I presented (like Ethena) as an example, I believed at the time that its return potential was about 51 times; my logic is that investors will chase higher yields; in the context of declining U.S. Treasury yields, they will generate returns by using synthetic dollars and taking advantage of basis trading on Bitcoin. As for EtherFi, I estimated a magnitude of about 34 times: when users can consume and use stablecoins in "offline or offline payment scenarios" and banking-like services (provided by EtherFi), the increment will be effectively absorbed.

Regarding Hyperliquid, there is roughly a 120–130 times potential for growth: when a large number of users holding stablecoins want to trade on-chain, it is expected to grow into one of the largest exchanges globally. Why would users choose on-chain trading? Because the barriers are lower, easier to use, and high leverage and related products better match demand. I would probably focus here. Clearly, Bitcoin itself will also perform well, but I cannot provide specific numbers; from the perspective of elastic amplification effects, it is not as good as the aforementioned sectors.

Kyle Chasse: You also mentioned that stablecoins might marginalize the role of the Federal Reserve; could you elaborate on that?

Arthur Hayes: The reason the Federal Reserve is important is that it sets short-term interest rates: it determines the effective federal funds rate and sets its target range; it also manages interest on reserves (IOR), which is usually at the lower end of the range; and it sets the reverse repurchase rate (ON RRP), which is usually at the upper end of the range. If the Treasury is issuing debt and selling T-bills to profit-seeking private institutions, and the rate given by the Federal Reserve is higher than the rate of my T-bills, then funds will go directly into ON RRP or be deposited in banks, borrowing at the interest on reserves rate from the Federal Reserve. The result is that the Treasury's debt issuance rate cannot be lower than the lower limit of the Federal Reserve's range.

But if a stablecoin issuer is legally restricted to only keeping underlying assets in banks (but TBTF banks do not lack deposits, and interest is almost zero) or purchasing T-bills; cannot enter ON RRP, cannot buy other "novel" financial assets—because I have written the rules into law, you can only do these two things.

In this framework, I set the short-term interest rate: the new marginal funds no longer come from money market funds but from stablecoin issuers. They have a large amount of dollar positions and need to earn a spread, so they must accept the yield I (Secretary Bessent) offer. If I believe the economy needs a 2% short-term interest rate, I will sell T-bills at 2%. However, nominally there will still be an effective federal funds rate (assuming I cannot directly control the Federal Reserve Board), but market trading will trend down around the T-bill yield I set (for example, down by 100 basis points or so).

Because stablecoins are regulated to only be used to purchase what I specify, I can sell them to you at the price I want. Unless the Federal Reserve cooperates, but this is a toolset that marginalizes the Federal Reserve's real power.

Kyle Chasse: Matt Hougan recently stated that stablecoins do not harm the economy; they merely take profits away from banks because, in DeFi, the savings side can directly fund the borrowing side. Do you agree with this view?

Arthur Hayes: Unless one or two commercial banks actively embrace stablecoins, I believe the commercial banking system will be marginalized. This is also why whether stablecoins pay interest is a "big issue"—issuers can directly pay interest. So why would I still put my money in a JPMorgan account? JPMorgan (or Citi, Wells Fargo, and other TBTF banks) offers interest rates on demand deposits of about 1.5%–2%. Meanwhile, the federal funds rate target range is 4.25%–4.50%, and money market fund yields are higher. So the result is that depositors will click twice to transfer their money to stablecoins, or banks will be forced to raise rates to match stablecoin yields, compressing their own profits.

The biggest advantage of stablecoin issuers lies in their extremely simplified manpower and processes: compliance and KYC automation, no outdated technology stack from the 1990s, and no high-paid but inefficient management. I once mentioned that Tether might be the "most profitable bank per capita" in human history: with a workforce of about a hundred, the per capita profit could be in the hundreds of millions. This is essentially what banks should do: absorb your funds and pay interest on them; while you hold this high-quality collateral, you can leverage, trade, and earn more returns in the DeFi Lego system—if you wish. As for me as a "bank," I only need to do simple and reliable things: safely transfer your money from point A to point B. In contrast, in TradFi, we allow banks to engage in all sorts of messy businesses, which I find very unsatisfactory.

From the perspective of "fiat currency devaluation (currency dilution)," Bitcoin is the best-performing asset in history. Yes, the S&P 500 is rising in dollar terms, but when converted to gold terms, the S&P 500 has not returned to its pre-2008 crisis high in gold terms since 2009; the housing market, when priced in gold, has also not recovered. The only assets that have performed better in gold terms may be some leading U.S. tech stocks. When everything is converted to Bitcoin terms, other assets are almost negligible on the chart—this highlights Bitcoin's exceptional performance in "currency devaluation trades."

Now let's talk about the differences between TradFi and crypto. Essentially, there is no difference: TradFi investors also believe that when the situation requires it, the Federal Reserve, Treasury, BOJ, ECB, PBOC, SNB, and other central banks/authorities will inject liquidity (print money); they also know that the typical practice is to buy bonds. Therefore, in their framework: buying 10-year U.S. Treasuries from 5% down to 4%, combined with 30 times leverage, can yield considerable returns—many macro investors (like Ray Dalio) have long engaged in this duration trade of declining interest rates. Our beliefs do not conflict with TradFi: everyone believes that money will be printed; the difference is that we in crypto have chosen a "faster horse" (a more elastic asset), and Bitcoin has historically performed best on this main line.

If you only focus on a few months' window, for example, asking "Why hasn't Bitcoin reached $150,000 yet?", I can only say: those who bought six months ago might be disappointed; but those who invested two, three, or fifty years ago are mostly seeing significant returns that far exceed the depreciation of the dollar and other fiat currencies. Therefore, there is no need to be emotional just because Bitcoin isn't "setting new all-time highs" every day. The S&P 500, whether it's at 6,700 points now or at other levels, is still priced in gold below pre-crisis levels. Everyone needs to adjust their expectations: if you expect "buying Bitcoin will let you drive a Lamborghini tomorrow," you are likely to get liquidated due to incorrect leverage and expectations.

If stablecoins see a trillion-dollar increment, who will be the biggest beneficiaries?

Arthur Hayes: Perhaps Lido and things related to ETH staking. Let me emphasize again, I am not someone who "does everything"; my portfolio is very concentrated, and I am very familiar with the fundamentals of my holdings. I can't say these will yield 1,000 times returns; if you buy a low-quality meme coin with a market cap of about $5 million and it skyrockets, you might indeed make more than I do.

But I am not willing to take that kind of risk. I need to deploy a large amount of capital in a few targets, and I won't be staring at my phone 24/7. The type of investment will affect your choices: you might say, "These targets can't possibly give me 1,000 times returns"—I completely agree. But these products all have product-market fit (PMF), thousands of users, annual revenue in the billions, and they won't disappear at any moment.

Kyle Chasse: I want to ask about a point that I am personally very interested in. When we chatted in Singapore last time, you mentioned HYPE (I felt I had already missed it; now it seems to have nearly doubled). It has always caught my attention, but I haven't bought it yet. Given the current FDV of about $57 billion, do you think there is still significant upside potential?

Arthur Hayes: I am not sure about their current number of employees; when I last spoke with Jeff, there were about 10 people, and it may have slightly increased now. Based on my experience running a large exchange, this team's code delivery capability is extremely impressive. The Ethena team has about 20 people. These small, focused teams that refine a specific product deliver quality far superior to many centralized companies. Hyperliquid is a leveraged derivatives trading platform that is expanding spot trading through the HIP-3 permissionless listing mechanism, and currently, perpetual contracts can also be listed without permission. Many protocols have made similar attempts before, with dYdX being one of them, performing well; but unfortunately, they did not return the real profits to token holders, which is why their tokens performed so poorly… I believe Hyperliquid's next goal is to surpass Binance. How will it go from here to becoming the "#1 exchange in any form globally"? Clearly, it won't be easy and will require a lot of work and luck.

But this is exactly the direction I am betting on, and I see it moving in the right direction. Just the active participation of major stablecoin issuers in USDH-related proposals is enough to demonstrate Hyperliquid's core position in the crypto trading ecosystem, and its prospects are excellent, with continuous improvement in recognition only getting better. The only thing that slightly concerns me is that there will be a massive team token unlock in November, and we will need to see how positions and structures evolve. As I mentioned in my speech, if there is a large-scale expansion of stablecoins as I envision, my return target range for 2028 is over 100 times. This is why I expressed a bullish view on HYPE on stage.

If ultimately about $10 trillion flows into stablecoins, then Hyperliquid is expected to grow into one of the largest trading platforms globally. As for the issue of "currency devaluation"—the crux of it is: it forces those without significant financial assets to become speculators. Because they will think: I can't afford a house, I can't buy a whole Bitcoin, I can't do the things I want to do.

But with leveraged trading platforms available—if I bet on a certain shitcoin or pick the right meme stock in this "American-style casino" stock market, I might be able to buy a car and pay off that "worthless" student loan. This is extremely detrimental to society, but those in power have chosen to create such a system, and most people have gone along with it.

Is this year's DAT model likely to become the "FTX moment" trigger?

Arthur Hayes: The publicly available information is that I have served as an advisor for a project related to the Solana ecosystem, so I instinctively believe that the DAT "meta-narrative" will continue to evolve in the corporate finance circles of TradFi. However, I believe there will ultimately be only one or two winners in each mainstream asset track. In the Bitcoin track, MicroStrategy is already there. It is very difficult to create a "Bitcoin DAT" and surpass MicroStrategy. There are attempts like Block.one in the market, but it is not easy to shake Michael Saylor. In the ETH track, there are Bitmine and others; in the Solana track, there are Upexi and other projects; almost any mainstream chain will have corresponding DAT model companies.

For investors, the key is to see through this "corporate finance alchemy." If I can push the stock price, trading volume, and liquidity high enough, I can open a whole set of institutional funding channels (allowing me to issue/sell debt and equity derivatives). The higher the stock price and the bigger the "narrative," the more "diverse" capital structure tools I can design, thus continuously "rolling in" more Bitcoin or other targets into the balance sheet, thereby enhancing shareholder equity. This is a game about scale, distribution, and channels.

Michael Saylor has already proven: there is a large group of underperforming fund managers and index funds that want to gain exposure to Bitcoin's risk volatility and its excellent risk-return ratio, but they cannot buy Bitcoin ETFs (under many advisory/mandate constraints, they are viewed as currency or commodities, not within the authorized scope); they cannot self-custody Bitcoin (not within their functions/processes). So they can only buy stocks of listed companies. If you can push a listed company that holds crypto assets into their "compliance basket," they will spend $2/$3/$10 to acquire $1 of net assets—this is not "irrational"; they are just following the rules. However, in this game, ultimately, there may only be one or two winners in each track.

Of course, newer issuers will emerge in the later stages of the cycle, and they will resort to more aggressive corporate finance tools to pursue higher stock price elasticity. When prices decline, these practices will backfire. I predict that a large DAT incident will occur at the bottom of this cycle: FTX exploded during the bottom phase, and BlockFi also had issues at the bottom, such as Bitcoin retracting 70% from $1,000,000. At that time, these companies will crash, and their stocks or bonds may see significant discounts, providing global secondary market arbitrage funds with opportunities to "bottom fish—compress discounts—unlock crypto assets in the vault."

From a historical perspective, if market sentiment is extremely exuberant in Q4, how would you respond?

Arthur Hayes: What I care most about is the market's expectations and pathways for "printing money." In my view, Trump has not yet started to exert force; I believe he will align the policy "puzzle" by mid-2026, significantly stimulating the U.S. economy.

The key is: how the market "front-prices" this round of money printing. If I judge that the market's expectations for the amount of money Trump can print have become too crazy, I will appropriately reduce my positions. Therefore, I do not have specific price targets; I am more focused on a sense of "whether expectations are too high or too low." I am currently writing an article on the theme "The Euro Collapse Triggered by France's Default." There are other events in the global market that may continue to reinforce this "must print money" logic. At the same time, we are in a transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order; politicians tend to print money to appease during "changes." Considering these factors, I hold a fairly optimistic judgment on the scale of money printing before the end of this decade.

Next, we need to see: the expectations of the crypto ecosystem and macro funds regarding this main line. I believe the market generally underestimates the upside potential of equities, crypto, and other risk assets. Governments around the world desperately need to print money—yes, the end of the cycle may lead to some sort of "apocalyptic liquidation," but I do not believe we have reached that stage. Governments have just regained the impulse to "print money": buying military supplies, providing welfare to the public, etc.

China is combating deflation with piecemeal stimulus; I believe it will ultimately join this action. Japan, Europe, and the U.S. have to do this, and it is likely to happen simultaneously. Meanwhile, AI and robots will bring deflationary shocks; if employment is pressured while debt still needs to be repaid, the traditional part of the fractional reserve banking system may be "pushed to the wall," ultimately having to turn to higher reserves and continue printing money to maintain banking system stability—because the state will not allow systemic bankruptcy.

We are facing a significant social choice. Historical experience shows that the government's first choice is often: to print money first. Therefore, I believe we are only in the "first game" of this massive transformation—about how we reorganize the global economic society. Thus, I do not agree with the "four-year cycle." Under this macro overlay, I believe the market has the capacity to push Bitcoin up to the range of $150,000, $170,000, or even $200,000—this is my judgment from now until the end of this decade.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。