Arthur Hayes新文：AIバブル崩壊迫る、仮想通貨市場は短期的に圧力を受ける

Original text by Arthur Hayes

Compiled by Luffy, Foresight News

Is it all just my illusion, or can you really just subscribe to Citrini Research and blindly buy all the stocks it recommends to invest in artificial intelligence these days?

Am I dreaming? Or has the price of oil already lost its influence over the economy and politics? If so, that would explain why Trump and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are trading barbs on social media while a large number of ships remain stranded in the Strait of Hormuz.

The two-year US Treasury yield is 0.5 percentage points above the effective federal funds rate. With the market sending such a clear signal, will the Fed really stay put and refuse to raise rates at its next meeting?

Will all the dividends AI creates for the US really only fall into the hands of a few tech workers?

This chaotic world forces me to do a reality check to confirm whether I am awake or deep in a dream. If the test confirms it’s all an illusion, I will immediately adjust my investment portfolio. This article is that test. After writing these words and sorting out my thoughts, my holdings will either see a major shift or remain unchanged.

Let me start with my core judgment: the current market state feels more like a dream. In the entire investment system, the price of oil and other hydrocarbon energy is a core variable with reverse transmission effects. The essence of human perception is converting energy into biological intelligence, and the logic of AI is the same. This rule will never be broken. Markets may deviate from this common sense in the short term, but reality will eventually strike back.

This article will start with oil prices and end with the US election. The current situation is likely to trigger a burst of the AI stock market bubble, dragging the entire crypto market down with it. Only after the dust settles will Bitcoin have a chance to bottom out and rebound. I previously asserted that Bitcoin would never touch the $60,000 mark again. Obviously, that was a misjudgment, which is the norm in market forecasting. I always adhere to one principle: you can have strong opinions, but don't hold them stubbornly.

Let's dive into the analysis.

To Negotiate or Not: The Core Dilemma

Politicians always act in their own self-interest. Only Trump himself likely knows why he launched an unprovoked military operation against Iran. Faced with the barrage of statements from him and his advisors at every turn, it's impossible for outsiders to discern the truth. Since we're at this point, dwelling on the cause is pointless. The real question is whether Trump and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will choose a ceasefire and how the standoff will end.

This conflict is now entirely orchestrated by Trump. For him and the Republican camp, starting a war in an election year puts them in a difficult position.

In the US, the prices of necessities like gasoline and food often directly determine election outcomes. With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, energy and food inflation is rising, all stemming from the Trump administration's military action against Iran, taken without public consultation. Some might point fingers at Israel, but that argument doesn't hold water. Anyone familiar with US history knows the domestic power structure doesn't take orders from abroad.

American public doesn't generally oppose foreign wars as long as their daily lives aren't affected and no friends or family are casualties. Trump has repeatedly emphasized that only 13 US soldiers died in this special military operation. This is also why the US prefers high-precision long-range weapons and "video game warfare." Even though launching this Middle Eastern conflict lacks a clear winning strategy and goes against the expectations of many supporters, the base still stands with the Republican Party. The fact that some Republican congressmen who wavered on their stance faced Trump's internal pressure and lost their primaries confirms this.

Trump's core risk isn't that his base won't vote in November, but that soaring prices will push a large number of swing voters towards the Democrats. The cost of living has become the biggest problem for Trump's campaign.

To win over swing voters, Trump must at least stabilize current oil prices. With the supply chain just beginning to digest the pressure from higher energy and raw material costs, completely curbing inflation is unrealistic. All Trump can do now is manage market expectations for inflation, not change inflation itself.

Whether Trump is willing to reach a deal with Iran depends entirely on oil prices. As oil prices rise, his rhetoric will soften. But if the market anticipates imminent negotiations and oil prices fall in response, he will change his tune. After all, from a geopolitical standpoint, any agreement reached through these negotiations would likely be more disadvantageous than the one the Obama administration signed with Iran. Many voters would see it as a "defeat," costing the Republican Party at the polls.

Negotiations always require concessions from both sides. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps faces similar calculations. If oil prices are too high, their major economic partners will pressure Iran to compromise with the US. But if Iran signals a willingness to negotiate and oil prices fall, the pressure from those partners also eases.

At current oil price levels, neither side has a strong incentive to back down. While oil prices are significantly higher than before the conflict, they haven't reached crisis levels. The commodity markets are generally stable, there's no widespread global famine, and most countries can source key industrial materials from elsewhere.

But this delicate balance is unsustainable. A significant reduction in global core energy supply without a corresponding price surge defies market logic. Once global spare capacity is exhausted, spot prices will inevitably spike – a consensus among many commodity analysts. The crisis hasn't fully materialized yet only because global energy inventories were ample before the conflict started.

If the US-Iran stalemate drags on until the end of Q2, we can expect a sharp surge in spot prices for hydrocarbons and basic commodities in Q3 of this year.

To paraphrase Churchill: Politicians will only make the right choice after exhausting all other options. Only when the situation is completely out of control will Trump and Iran truly sit down at the negotiating table. In my view, the disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz will likely persist until early Q3.

Let's assume oil prices will gradually rise amidst volatility. Given this backdrop, how will rising oil prices interact with Trump's campaign rhetoric?

The November Election Clash: Republicans vs. Democrats

According to prediction market Polymarket odds, the Republican Party can only narrowly hold onto the Senate majority, while it will suffer significant losses in the House of Representatives.

The general consensus is that Republicans will lose the House, but I have a different view. Trump still has a chance to turn things around, and the breakthrough lies in shifting the narrative towards regulation and taxation related to data center construction and the AI industry.

Here is the current seat distribution among parties (218 votes needed to pass a bill):

Based on current Polymarket odds, here is the projected party composition after the election:

The post-election outlook for Republican seats in both chambers isn't great. However, the GOP can use redistricting to change the situation. When the existing rules guarantee defeat, changing the rules becomes necessary. Assuming Polymarket's predictions are correct, the Republicans need to gain 19 seats. Redistricting can reduce this number.

Here's the potential impact of redistricting:

Now the Republicans only need to win 11 more seats. Let's look at the competitive races. Based on current polls and within the margin of error, which districts might lean slightly Republican?

35 seats are highly uncertain. As mentioned earlier, high inflation and rising living costs are a difficult negative issue for Trump. Another major topic that can galvanize voters from both parties is data center expansion and AI's impact on the job market.

Almost everyone, except the ultra-wealthy, is worried about data center construction driving up costs and AI taking away jobs. Multiple regions have already implemented moratoriums on new data center projects, and calls for higher taxes on AI companies to subsidize the general public are growing louder. After all, most people aren't AI executives or highly-paid workers in the field.

For voters in competitive districts, this is a highly influential issue. Trump can easily secure the remaining key seats by taking a stance on the AI industry. At this stage, he only needs to make statements, not enact specific legislation. He just needs to promise the public that if the Republicans win, they will crack down on the AI industry after the election.

As a seasoned politician, Trump is adept at making campaign promises he rarely keeps. His handling of the Epstein-related files is a classic example: he loudly proclaimed he would thoroughly investigate those involved during the campaign, but only released a small amount of documents after taking office. He can use the same playbook now. During the campaign, he can claim he will introduce legislation to slow data center expansion, impose a windfall profit tax on AI companies, and use the revenue for a new round of stimulus checks. After the election, once the Republican power base is secure, he can quietly back away from these pledges.

Some might find it hard to see Trump adopting the tactics of left-wing Democrats. But remember, he enacted the largest universal relief plan since the New Deal, without restricting how recipients spent the money on daily necessities. To secure his political position, temporarily distancing himself from AI giants like Elon Musk and portraying himself as a champion of the common people is not a difficult move for Trump.

If Trump does make aggressive statements targeting the AI industry, the market won't just see it as campaign rhetoric. It will interpret it as a sign that the US intends to significantly limit capital expansion and increase taxes on the AI sector. Panic would spread immediately, bursting the AI stock market bubble.

We saw the market's sensitivity to such conflicts when Elon Musk and Trump argued publicly on social media, and Musk's relevant departments publicly questioned Trump. Trump responded by threatening to cancel government contracts related to Musk's companies, causing Tesla's stock to plummet 18% in a single day. Politics can nurture an industry, but it can also deliver a swift blow.

That dispute was later confirmed to be a publicity stunt. The two quickly reconciled, and Musk was even invited to attend a recent summit between Trump and the Chinese President in Beijing. But at the time, the market took it seriously, triggering a massive sell-off.

This was just turmoil from a personal disagreement. If Trump, representing the Republican Party, explicitly states a plan to impose heavy taxes on AI models and agent-related businesses, the impact would be far greater. Earlier, a similar statement from South Korean political circles caused their local composite stock index to nearly hit the daily limit-down the next day. It only recovered after official emergency denials.

The current optimistic market expectations for the AI sector are based on the belief that industry revenues will continue to grow exponentially and that new technologies and wealth concentration won't trigger public backlash. This perspective is detached from reality, more like being lost in a dream. Trump's statements could become the reality check that pricks this illusion. Whether he actually follows through still depends on oil prices.

The higher oil prices driven by the Iran situation push inflation, the fewer campaign talking points Trump will have available, eventually forcing him to target data centers and the AI industry.

The reason Trump is so keen to avoid a Democratic-controlled House is clear. If the Democrats take the House, they can use subpoena power to continuously call Trump, his family, and his core advisors to testify, asking tough questions. If the Democrats also win the White House in 2028, the Justice Department, armed with extensive evidence, could pursue a thorough investigation and prosecution, targeting Trump's business entities.

Let's map out the entire logic chain: The failure of US-Iran negotiations leads to higher oil prices; higher prices cause voter dissatisfaction; Trump is forced to court votes by promising to regulate and tax the AI industry.

From now until the November election, even a halving of AI-related stocks is an acceptable cost for Trump if it means escaping endless Democratic investigations. After the election, he can easily reverse his earlier statements on data centers and AI. The industry would return to normal, and the S&P 500 could even challenge the 10,000-point mark.

But for investors, market movements are interconnected. A crash in the AI sector would completely alter market expectations for its future returns. After experiencing the shock of regulation and heavy taxes, investors can no longer be blindly optimistic about this track.

California Dreamin': Where Does Liquidity Flow?

Before analyzing the impact of the planned IPOs of the three giants – SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI – on global financial markets, let me explain one thing: Why hasn't Bitcoin rallied significantly alongside the continuous easing of dollar liquidity since the end of last year's third quarter?

On November 30, 2022, ChatGPT was launched for the public, kicking off the AI super-bubble. Around the same time, the scandal of FTX founder SBF misappropriating user funds was fully exposed. Bitcoin bottomed around $15,000 that year and rallied to $125,000 by October 2025, a cumulative increase of over six times. But over the same period, Nvidia's stock rose elevenfold, and many small and mid-cap tech stocks that rely on computing power to convert electricity into intelligence also surged. The returns from the AI sector far outpaced the crypto market, and this gap has been widening since late 2024.

Even at Bitcoin's (white) all-time highs, Nvidia's (gold) returns were superior.

Bitcoin (white) has performed worse after hitting its ATH, still down 50% from its peak. Nvidia (gold), the world's most valuable company, is still up 10% since late 2025.

Based on my previous framework linking crypto markets to fiat liquidity, Bitcoin should have seen higher gains in the current environment. The reality is the opposite. What went wrong?

I used to focus on the total scale of fiat money creation but overlooked the specific flow of funds. I assumed liquidity would eventually flow into Bitcoin, pushing its price up. This time, my assessment was off.

My conclusion is: almost all of the newly created dollar liquidity has been absorbed by the AI sector. AI is a highly capital-intensive industry. Building the massive data centers needed to run AI requires enormous amounts of energy. Hydrocarbons, nuclear power, and renewables are converted into electricity, which is then sent to data centers and used by specialized chips for model training and inference.

Starting in 2024, global capital expenditure on data centers began to surge, accelerating further in 2025. Industry financing needs exploded alongside this. Based on disclosed data, total debt financing in AI-related fields from November 2022 to the present amounts to $1.5 trillion. Coincidentally, the increase in the US broad money supply (M2) over the same period was also $1.5 trillion. The answer is clear: all the new dollars went into the AI track, leaving Bitcoin with no share of the incremental liquidity.

The reason Bitcoin could mount a strong rebound from the FTX collapse low in 2022 is that the massive debt-fueled expansion in AI primarily occurred after 2025. Of that $1.5 trillion in debt, $1.3 trillion was incurred from 2025 onwards. Coincidentally, Bitcoin's price peak occurred in October 202