Arthur Hayes remains structurally bullish on Bitcoin. He doesn't think now is the time to buy.
The BitMEX co-founder and Maelstrom CIO said on the Coin Stories podcast on March 10 that he will continue to be patient until a more familiar macro catalyst, central bank liquidity, arrives. Hayes says the potential credit stress from a prolonged Iran war and AI-induced economic disruption could eventually force the Federal Reserve to return to printing money, and that, rather than conflict itself, is the signal he's waiting for.
“If you had a dollar to invest right now, would you invest it in Bitcoin? No, I would wait,” Hayes said near the end of the interview. “I think the longer this conflict goes on, the more likely it is that the Fed will have to print money to support the American war machine. That’s when the central banks start printing money, that’s when I’m going to buy Bitcoin.”
The difference was important throughout the conversation. Hayes rejected the idea that war is automatically bullish for Bitcoin, arguing that the real propagation mechanism is liquidity expansion. “If you're saying, 'Okay, war is good for Bitcoin,' what you're really saying is that war means printing money. Printing money is good for Bitcoin,” he said. “Now let's wait for the banknotes to be printed. Don't try to time it, because you might be wrong.”
Related books
Arthur Hayes predicts more pain for Bitcoin
This argument fits into the broader framework that Hayes developed throughout the interview. Bitcoin is more of a “liquidity alarm” than a clean deterioration transaction, already reacting to tightening conditions, credit stress, and lack of new dollar creation. He linked that view to the rise of AI, which he said could accelerate white-collar job losses, weigh on private credit and bank exposures, and force markets to price in a much sharper economic collapse than many currently expect.
“I think it's going to happen sooner than people think because of the exponential nature of the rate of advancement in AI,” Hayes said. “All you need is 10 to 20 percent (job transfers), and then the leverage of the banking system takes care of the rest. At some point, the market says, 'Oh, the value of this is zero.'
In that scenario, the market could recognize the problem long before the full economic damage is visible in the data, he said. Prices for local banks, private credit and a broad range of financial stocks could rise sharply as deposit flight and emergency Federal Reserve aid closely follow. It's a moment that Hayes believes is far more constructive for Bitcoin than the current backdrop.
Related books
Still, his short-term caution didn't extend to Bitcoin's long-term role. Describing himself as a “structurally very long” crypto, Hayes argued that the case against non-state funds is stronger now than when Bitcoin was launched. He also said cryptocurrencies should not be reduced to a more complex version of traditional finance and warned against shaping the industry based on institutional priorities.
“Bitcoin went from zero to $66,000, regardless of today's price, with no government support, opaque regulation, hostile banking infrastructure or regulators,” Hayes said. “So why do we bend over backwards to gain acceptance from people who don’t have our best interests at heart?”
He was equally dismissive of conspiratorial explanations for the market downturn, such as claims that market makers are intentionally suppressing Bitcoin's price. He said losses are often caused by poor positioning, bad timing, and poor leverage used by traders who can't keep up with the pace of cryptocurrencies.
For investors frustrated by Bitcoin's lack of immediate, life-changing returns, Hayes' answer was straightforward: “Adjust your expectations.” “The market's job is not to make money. The market's job is to take money,” he said, arguing that long-term compounding is still more important than trying to force a six-month windfall.
At the time of writing, BTC was trading at $69,538.
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart on TradingView.com
