On March 24, 2026, Beijing time, Iran announced the start of charging a "security toll" to certain vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, abruptly bringing this globally sensitive energy passage back to the center of geopolitical games without any prior indications. The Strait of Hormuz accounts for approximately 20% of global oil transportation, and if the passage expectations are disrupted, oil prices, shipping costs, and inflation expectations will be forced to be re-evaluated. Traditional assets have already responded quickly: on the same day, U.S. stock index futures fell overall by about 0.5%‑0.6%. In this context, an unavoidable question arises: when the lifeline of energy is "marked up" and traditional risk assets are under pressure, will Bitcoin be used as a hedging tool, or will it still just be a high-volatility chip?
What Iran's Toll Could Change Through the Lifeline Strait
The core message on March 24 was: Iran has begun charging a "security toll" on certain vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Currently, public channels only confirm the act of charging fees itself, with no disclosures on specific amounts, applicable vessel standards, payment methods, and other critical details; existing reports largely come from single sources, making the information highly incomplete. This approach of "only releasing direction without details" carries obvious indications of bargaining and probing, making it more difficult for the market to price future costs.
The Strait of Hormuz is the throat through which oil from the Persian Gulf is transported globally, and according to mainstream statistics, about 20% of global oil transportation occurs through this narrow waterway. From the shipping ports of Middle Eastern oil-producing countries to refineries in Asia, Europe, and North America, a vast majority of Middle Eastern crude oil cannot do without this channel, which many energy analysts refer to as the "lifeline of global energy supply." For this reason, any change in the situation regarding Hormuz will be magnified by the oil market, shipping, and insurance markets.
From a geopolitical perspective, Iran's visibility of the "security toll" is equivalent to monetizing the control of a key passage, attempting to convert pressures previously exerted through military presence and geopolitical influence into quantifiable economic leverage. On one hand, this will directly raise the risk premium for passage through this strait, increasing the hedging costs for shipowners, traders, and insurance companies; on the other hand, it also provides Iran with a chip that can be increased or withdrawn at any time in potential future sanction negotiations and regional conflicts. The right of passage is no longer just a form of geopolitical "soft power," but a quantifiable variable in expectations for oil prices and supply security.
Oil Price Risk Premium Rises, U.S. Stock Futures Adjust First
From the pricing chain perspective, once the market believes that the cost and uncertainty of passage through Hormuz will rise, the risk premium reflected in crude oil contracts will be elevated again. Even if actual supply temporarily does not decrease, traders will preemptively factor in potential future transportation disruptions, rising insurance costs, and increased diversion costs into the prices. These "anticipated costs" often first reflect in futures and forward contracts before transmitting to spot and terminal prices.
On March 24, U.S. stock index futures fell overall, with the Dow, S&P, and Nasdaq futures declining roughly in the 0.5%‑0.6% range, representing the first round of feedback from traditional risk assets to heightened tensions. For U.S. stocks, higher oil prices mean increased energy costs for companies and eroded disposable income for residents, which suppresses profit expectations and valuations; combined with market aversion to geopolitical uncertainty, it is only logical for futures to be preemptively lowered.
If Iran's toll mechanism becomes normalized, or even phased up in the future, the pricing of oil and related assets will need to undergo a deeper reassessment. In terms of crude oil, beyond the fundamentals of supply and demand, shipping and security costs will become more deeply embedded within the "normal price range", limiting the downward space for oil prices; the shipping industry will face pressure from continuously rising freight rates and route reconstructions; at the macro level, higher and more volatile energy prices will increase medium- and long-term inflation expectations, making central banks more cautious in monetary policy, and thus suppressing stock and credit bond valuations through rising interest rates and credit spreads. For funds that prefer leveraged and high-beta assets, this environment typically means a forced reduction in risk appetite.
Safe-Haven Narrative Resurfaces from Tankers to Bitcoin
Just as geopolitical risks are heating up, Bernstein released a report stating that Bitcoin may have reached a phase bottom, a viewpoint interpreted by many market participants within the context of "switching to safe-haven assets": when oil prices rise and U.S. stocks adjust, will some funds consider Bitcoin as a tool to hedge against macro and geopolitical uncertainty?
Looking back at past rounds of geopolitical conflicts, it's clear that traditional safe-haven assets and Bitcoin have shown significant performance differences. Gold and U.S. Treasuries often see inflows at the outset of major crises: gold is bought due to its long-standing narrative as a store of value, while U.S. Treasuries become the "last resort" due to their credit and liquidity advantages. Bitcoin, on the other hand, tends to exhibit characteristics of a high-beta risk asset: during the initial shock of tightening liquidity and asset sell-offs, Bitcoin often gyrates alongside stock markets, and only in the second phase, when policy expectations change or liquidity is loosened again, might it embark on an independent trend. Therefore, the realistic foundation for "Bitcoin as a safe haven" is limited, relying more on narrative and holder structure rather than long-standing institutional allocations.
In the current wave of "oil price + geopolitical" combined shocks, if the volatility of crude oil and the stock market significantly amplifies, the switching paths of funds among oil, gold, and crypto assets will likely first follow tradition: some hedging funds will flow into gold and high-rated bonds, while funds still maintaining a high risk appetite will seek resilient targets between tech stocks and Bitcoin. Under this setup, Bitcoin is more likely to assume the role of a "high-volatility risk exposure"—when safe-haven sentiments ease slightly and liquidity is not yet tightened to extremes, there is an incentive for incremental funds to attempt higher returns on it. This process will directly reflect in increased trading activity and rising implied volatility of options, potentially amplifying one-sided price accelerations upward or downward, strengthening the tension between its "safe-haven narrative" and "high-risk reality."
Regulatory Discourse and Technological Waves: The Game Between Tokens and AI
Apart from geopolitical and market volatility, the narratives on regulatory and technological levels are also reshaping the positioning of crypto assets. Liu Lihong, the head of the National Data Bureau of China, has proposed that the Chinese name for Token should be "Ci Yuan" (Words and Elements), marking the first formal naming of this concept within the official discourse system. Compared to earlier ambiguous terms, the expression "Ci Yuan" seems to be a redefinition and absorption of concepts related to digital assets within the sovereignty narrative framework: it seeks to incorporate them into a governable and regulatable digital elements system while maintaining distance from purely speculative market appearances.
In parallel, the acceleration of technological paradigms is underway. Briefing indicates that OpenAI plans to double its workforce by the end of 2026 to counter increasingly fierce global competition. This action is seen as a signal of expansion in AI infrastructure and applications, implying that computing power, data, algorithms, and capital are rapidly consolidating in the hands of a few leading organizations. Within this framework, digital assets, AI, and geopolitics are no longer three separate lines but engage in competition within the same coordinate system: from data sovereignty to computing power distribution, to cross-border capital flows, they all interact.
Under the dual framework of reinforced regulatory discourse and expanding AI infrastructure, assets like Bitcoin are being reinterpreted. On one hand, in terms of price trajectories and volatility structures, they are still viewed as typical risk assets by most macro funds, easily suffering setbacks during interest rate hikes, balance sheet contraction, and risk appetite shrinkage; on the other hand, in an era that emphasizes data sovereignty, technological sovereignty, and cross-border capital controls, Bitcoin's borderless accounting and settlement attributes allow it to be seen by some market participants as a chip in the new order's struggle—not only against inflation but also as a tool to combat the dominance of a single system. This dual identity causes it to repeatedly receive new labels during each instance of geopolitical conflict, regulatory statements, and technological leaps.
How to Reassess Risk Assets When Energy Passage Is Marked Up
In summary, Iran's action of charging security tolls in the Strait of Hormuz is a substantial probe into the pricing method of global energy passage rights. As Hormuz carries about 20% of global crude oil transport, once the passage is "marked up," it becomes challenging for the risk premium in oil prices to decline, while the rise in shipping and insurance costs will elevate inflation expectations, consequently suppressing risk sentiments in traditional markets. The approximately 0.5%-0.6% decline in U.S. stock index futures on March 24 is an early reflection of this chain reaction.
In such an environment, Bitcoin is forced to assume a dual role: from the asset characteristic perspective, it remains a high-volatility, high-elasticity risk asset, prone to selling off during macro tightening and extreme safe-haven sentiment; yet in narrative dimensions, it continues to be packaged as "digital gold" and "decentralized hedging tools," attracting new attention during each round of geopolitical tensions. Bernstein's judgment on the "phase bottom" essentially straddles these two perspectives: on one side is the technical judgment of valuation and cycles, while on the other side is the narrative betting considering geopolitical and macro volatility as potential catalysts.
Looking ahead, if Iran further refines, implements, or even upgrades its toll charging mechanism, or if more countries imitate this in other critical energy and freight passages, global asset pricing will face a new round of structural reassessment: energy and freight "risk prices" becoming the norm, while inflation and interest rate centrals find it even harder to return to previous lows. During this process, regulatory discourse will continue to shape the legitimate boundaries and application scenarios of digital assets, while AI and other technological waves will reshape productivity and capital flows. Whether Bitcoin and other crypto assets will be more locked within the framework of "high-risk trading targets" or gain higher weighting in the new order's struggle will depend on how these three forces redefine power and returns in the contests of the upcoming years.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
