TACO Failure on the Eve? Trump's Indefinite Ceasefire, Bitcoin Trend Analysis

On the morning of April 22nd, Trump said during a phone call on CNBC's "Squawk Box": "I don't want to extend the ceasefire. We don't have that much time. I expect the bombing to start because I think it's a better posture to enter."

Hours after saying this, he posted on Truth Social announcing an indefinite extension of the ceasefire, until Iran submits a proposal and negotiations conclude in some manner.

This time, Trump's "off-ramp" was: a request from the Chief of Army Staff and the Prime Minister of Pakistan. He added that the decision was also related to "severe divisions within the Iranian government."

Those familiar with Trump know this is his classic TACO maneuver.

BlockBeats Note: TACO is an acronym for "Trump Always Chickens Out." This term was first coined last year by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong and later widely adopted by traders to specifically describe Trump's behavioral pattern of issuing extreme threats followed by policy reversals.

How the Ceasefire Was Extended

This does not appear to be an active diplomatic victory, but rather a passive decision made with no better options before the deadline.

This story begins with the Islamabad negotiations on April 11th.

At that time, Vice President Vance led the U.S. delegation to Pakistan, engaging in 21 hours of talks with Iran. These were the highest-level direct talks between the U.S. and Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Upon leaving, Vance claimed Iran "refused to accept U.S. conditions." The U.S. core demand was singular: Iran must make a clear commitment "not to pursue nuclear weapons"—not just a promise not to build a bomb, but also a promise not to retain any technical capability that could rapidly achieve nuclear weaponization. On this point, Iran did not agree. Iran's chief negotiator, Parliament Speaker Kalibaf, stated that the U.S. must first decide "whether it can win our trust."

Vice President Vance gestures while boarding Air Force Two after peace talks with Iran in Islamabad, Pakistan, on April 12th. Image Source: Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights

After the talks broke down, the U.S. immediately announced a maritime blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

The two-week ceasefire framework was established on April 8th, with an expiration date of April 22nd. On the eve of expiration, the situation deteriorated sharply: Iran delayed confirming its attendance at the second round of talks, and Pakistan's Information Minister publicly stated that a "formal response has not yet been received." In preparation, Pakistan had already enhanced security deployments in Islamabad, with security personnel appearing around the Islamabad Serena Hotel—a detail indicating that Pakistan was still waiting for Iran's confirmation.

Vance was originally scheduled to fly to Islamabad again, but after a series of internal meetings at the White House, the trip was postponed indefinitely. The Wall Street Journal's report was more direct: Trump privately discussed canceling the trip entirely, citing Iran's unwillingness to concede on nuclear enrichment. The Iranian negotiation team subsequently formally informed the U.S. through Pakistani intermediaries that under these circumstances, participating in talks was a waste of time, as the U.S. was preventing any substantive agreement.

Simultaneously, Trump faced immense pressure from within the U.S. political landscape.

Deutsche Bank constructed a "stress index," combining inflation expectations and U.S. Treasury yields to predict White House policy adjustment points. According to this framework, when crude oil prices approach $95–100 per barrel, the White House's stance noticeably softens; when the 10-year Treasury yield approaches 4.5%, the actual pressure for policy adjustment truly materializes.

Currently, WTI has already broken above $90. If the situation escalates again after the ceasefire expires, oil prices breaking $100 is not unimaginable. Gasoline prices at the pump exceeding $4 per gallon have historically been extremely damaging to the approval ratings of U.S. leaders.

Furthermore, Trump plans to visit China in mid-May and hopes to appear as a "victor" rather than a "wartime president." This timing window gives Iran more bargaining chips and provides Washington with greater motivation to be flexible on the deadline.

From this perspective, the phrasing "indefinite extension" appears more like a political gesture aimed domestically rather than a diplomatic concession to Iran. It gives Trump space to buy time without declaring failure.

It was in this state that Trump announced the extension.

Axios' analysis hit the nail on the head: While this extension avoids a resumption of war and large-scale regional escalation, it weakens Trump's own negotiating leverage. A credible threat of force relies precisely on the authenticity of the countdown. Every TACO consumes the credibility of the next threat.

Internal Divisions in Iran

Iran's response is divided, with clear tension between moderates and hardliners.

The tone of Iranian state television is one of victory narrative: Iran is the "victor on the battlefield," controlling the Strait of Hormuz is the most valuable chip in this conflict, Iran agrees to a military combat pause, but "the war is not over." Simultaneously, Iranian state television warned that the premise of negotiations is that no topics "infringing on Iran's independence and dignity" can be discussed, primarily including defense and missile capabilities, and nuclear capabilities and technology.

The rhetoric from hardliners is more direct. An advisor to the Iranian Parliament Speaker stated, "Trump's ceasefire extension is meaningless, the losing side cannot dictate terms," and warned that this extension is "buying time for a surprise attack."

But there are also moderate voices in Iran. Iran's Ambassador to the UN, Iravani, stated that the government has received "some signals" that the U.S. is prepared to halt the blockade, and once the blockade is lifted, "the next round of talks will be held in Islamabad." He simultaneously emphasized that the U.S. maritime blockade itself violates the ceasefire agreement, and lifting it is a prerequisite for holding new talks. When asked about his confidence in the prospects for talks, his response was: "We should give it a chance, we are hopeful."

The core contradiction remains unchanged: The U.S. demands complete nuclear abandonment, Iran demands lifting the blockade first. Both sides are using delay to gain space.

What's Next for BTC?

It is very clear that over the past two weeks, Bitcoin's price has been almost entirely driven by Middle East geopolitical narratives, not macro factors.

Last Friday, Bitcoin briefly surged to $78,300, hitting a new high since early February. Subsequently, Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the price retreated to the $75,000–$76,000 range. On April 19th, after the U.S. military seized the "TOUSKA" cargo ship, Bitcoin briefly fell below $74,000. On April 21st, after news of the ceasefire extension broke, the price rebounded intraday to break above $76,000, driving the overall crypto market up over 1%, with total market capitalization rising to $2.55 trillion.

Each price point corresponds to a specific event on the battlefield.

At the institutional level, demand has not disappeared. Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded approximately $1.29 billion in net inflows from April 14th to 17th. The figure for the week around April 10th was even higher, at about $1.1 billion, a timing that closely aligns with ceasefire expectations around the Islamabad talks.

BTC Markets analyst Rachel Lucas's assessment is: "Bitcoin's current resilience is less about narrative and more about market mechanics. Institutional buyers, particularly corporate capital, are aggressively accumulating on every dip." Analysts also noted that this recovery coincides with market focus on the hearing for Fed Chair candidate Warsh—investors are simultaneously betting on monetary policy direction.

But internal structural data signals are less optimistic.

After Bitcoin returned to $75,000, the perpetual futures funding rate has remained negative. A negative funding rate means short positions still dominate in the derivatives market. In other words: the spot price is rising, but structural forces for going long have not followed; this rebound is driven more by short covering than by new long positions entering.

Deribit's data confirms this judgment: Approximately $1.5 billion in Bitcoin put options are concentrated around $60,000, while around $75,000 there are $1.3 billion in call options. These two sets of data combine to form an ambiguous directional options structure.

The judgment of 10x Research Head of Research Thielen aligns with this signal. He pointed out that this rally has not been accompanied by significant call option buying, and the market is essentially experiencing a short-covering rally, not a trend-driven upswing.

Tokenize Capital's Hughes stated that the rally may weaken next month, with risks of further declines in August.

Even less optimistic is that CryptoQuant's on-chain data model shows current downward pressure on Bitcoin's price, with a potential mid-term test of support around $70,000. If on-chain momentum continues to weaken, a deeper correction could touch the $56,000 range. Morgan Stanley strategist Denny Galindo stated that Bitcoin is currently in the "autumn" phase of its four-year cycle, with winter approaching.

If the ceasefire holds and there are substantive signals of the Strait of Hormuz opening, some analysts believe Bitcoin could potentially challenge $80,000 before the end of April. However, this judgment relies on a long chain of prerequisites: the ceasefire holds, the blockade is lifted, negotiations progress, and global energy supply expectations stabilize, only then can market risk appetite truly open up.

Tariffs, threats to allies, pressure on the Fed—almost every time, the TACO moment arrives as expected, and those betting on the reversal have profited.

But TACO is not a law of nature; it is a predictive model based on past behavior. The Iran war differs in nature from trade negotiations. It involves military casualties, sovereign dignity, and domestic political red lines. Each TACO cycle consumes the dwindling space for mutual trust in negotiations and also the market's operational space for TACO. This also means that perhaps one day, TACO will completely fail.