In the Eastern Eight Time Zone this week, Trump once again made a tough statement against Europe, warning that if Europe sells U.S. Treasury bonds and other dollar assets, the U.S. "will not sit idly by." In the reports from several Chinese crypto media outlets, a phrase “If they really do that, then let them be” became the focal point of the headlines, adding fuel to the already tense financial relationship between the U.S. and Europe. The core of the market discussion is not whether this statement will immediately trigger policy action, but rather: dollar assets are being re-embedded into the geopolitical coordinate system, and holding U.S. Treasuries is no longer just a matter of yield and interest rates, but also a matter of security and alignment. A key question is echoing within the crypto community regarding this round of verbal sparring—will cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin be repackaged as “geopolitical hedging tools” and thus gain new premium expectations in the context of traditional assets being exposed to more political friction?
A phrase “let them be” ignites U.S.-Europe tensions
● Secondary source restoration: From the secondary reports of several Chinese media outlets such as Foresight News and Jinse Finance, Trump's main point is to warn Europe not to easily sell U.S. Treasury bonds and other dollar assets, or the U.S. may respond strongly. The phrase “If they really do that, then let them be” has been repeatedly quoted, presenting an almost indifferent, even provocative stance. However, due to the lack of a complete verbatim transcript and official context, the current public information remains a secondary version organized by the media, leaving much room for interpretation.
● Symbolic significance outweighs immediate consequences: In reality, Europe has not initiated any large-scale verifiable reduction actions, and the U.S. has not issued any formal policies directly linked to this. Therefore, this round of statements is more of a political pressure tactic and a display of posture, with its symbolic significance being that U.S. Treasuries and dollar assets are openly placed on the negotiation table, becoming chips that can be threatened or negotiated, rather than being unshakeable “risk-free assets.” This symbolic crack will slowly seep into the risk pricing models of various assets.
● Sensitive expectations and calm capital: Market sentiment is exceptionally sensitive to terms like “U.S.-Europe financial friction” and “transatlantic financial decoupling,” with media attention rapidly rising, but there is still no reliable evidence of drastic actions at the actual capital level. There have been no extreme fluctuations in U.S. Treasury yields confirmed by authoritative data, nor any public records of concentrated reductions by European parties. Fund managers often remain cautious until they actually see sell-offs, changes in spreads, and swap costs, only adding a layer of “geopolitical premium” discount to their pricing models, rather than immediately restructuring asset allocations.
Even a robust U.S. economy cannot block the narrative of geopolitical risk
● Macroeconomic data remains solid: From the latest quarterly data, the U.S. economic fundamentals are not bad. The research brief indicates that the core PCE price index for the third quarter is about 2.9%, close to the Federal Reserve's inflation target range; the same quarter's GDP growth rate is about 4.4%, showing that the momentum for economic expansion is still considerable. In terms of the labor market, the number of initial jobless claims last week was about 200,000, maintaining a historically low range, indicating that the job market remains tight. This set of data theoretically supports the optimistic narrative of “a soft landing for the U.S. economy, with asset prices having fundamental support.”
● The “layered pricing” of fundamentals and geopolitical risks: The contradiction lies in the fact that asset prices reflect not only economic data but also institutional and geopolitical security perceptions. On one side, the PCE and GDP present a picture of “growth and controllable inflation,” while on the other, the verbal sparring around U.S. Treasuries and dollar assets has activated long-term concerns about “financial weaponization” and the safety of reserve assets. The two are not mutually exclusive but are simultaneously incorporated into risk models: yields and growth push up valuations, while political and financial friction raises discount rates, leading to a discount on “justified valuations.”
● Buying insurance against transatlantic friction in advance: In this context, even if the market sees impressive macro data, it will not completely ignore the potential transatlantic financial friction. For long-term asset allocators, even if specific retaliatory measures have not yet taken shape, as long as the “decoupling risk” is raised, they will reserve a portion of their portfolio as a safety cushion: shortening duration, increasing the proportion of liquid assets, or shifting some positions to targets less likely to be bound by geopolitical sanctions. Whether cryptocurrencies can share in this layer of “pre-pricing” becomes a key focus for future observation.
Cracks in trust of U.S. Treasuries, can Bitcoin take the baton?
● The central position of the dollar and U.S. Treasuries: For a long time, the dollar has been the global settlement currency, and U.S. Treasuries are the core reserve asset, with the European Central Bank and various national central banks, as well as institutional investors, playing important structural holding roles. Europe holds U.S. Treasuries not only for yield and liquidity considerations but also as part of the entire transatlantic financial system's interlocking: bank balance sheets, insurance and pension duration allocations, cross-border clearing, and derivatives pricing all rely on this foundation. Therefore, any political rhetoric about “reducing U.S. Treasuries” is seen by the market as a test of the global financial center.
● Rebalancing imaginations of gold and Bitcoin: If the verbal sparring between the U.S. and Europe over U.S. Treasuries and dollar assets continues to escalate in the future, even without immediate decoupling, the mindset of reserves and large funds will subtly shift. Gold, traditionally carrying the narrative of “no credit risk, no defaulting sovereign,” is the primary beneficiary. However, over the past decade, Bitcoin has begun to be tentatively viewed by some institutions as a “geopolitical hedging supplementary option”: in an asset pool that does not want to overly bet on a single financial center while seeking higher potential returns, the weight game between gold and Bitcoin may become a slowly changing process.
● Geopolitical hedging logic and real-world constraints: Logically, non-sovereign, cross-border flow, and on-chain verifiability label Bitcoin as a “geopolitical hedging target.” However, real-world constraints are equally evident: price volatility is far higher than gold, and institutions face pressures from asset net value drawdowns and compliance reviews; regulatory stability regarding cryptocurrencies in some jurisdictions is still lacking, which weakens their predictability as “reserve tools.” Therefore, even if transatlantic financial games elevate the long-term bargaining position of non-sovereign assets, the pace and proportion of capital migrating to Bitcoin are unlikely to experience drastic jumps, resembling a slow trial process.
The crypto market has not seen a panic premium, just an added layer of narrative
● Lack of hard data with direct linkage: As of now, there is no reliable statistic to prove that Trump's recent remarks directly led to synchronized drastic fluctuations in U.S. Treasury yields and cryptocurrency prices. The research brief clearly states that the specific changes in U.S. Treasury yields and the scale of European holdings adjustments lack verifiable data support. Meanwhile, the recent price fluctuations of Bitcoin and mainstream tokens are more influenced by their own cycles, liquidity, and project-level news, making it difficult to draw a clear causal chain of “Trump's speech → sudden price surge” on the charts.
● The gap between amplified narratives and behavioral data: Media and social platforms naturally tend to use more impactful language when disseminating “U.S.-Europe financial friction” and “cracks in trust of U.S. Treasuries” to attract attention and clicks. However, on-chain capital flows, trading volumes, and holding structures have not shown structural turning points in sync. Individual news such as the Sentient SENT airdrop, Robinhood listing SKY spot, and DDC Bitcoin holdings increasing to 1,583 coins are more project-level or institutional actions, making it difficult to view them as systemic hedging responses to Trump's remarks.
● Emotional expectation trading outweighs real hedging migration: For the crypto market, “geopolitical risk” is more like a narrative card that can be used at any time: when prices already have upward momentum, any discussion about U.S. Treasuries, the dollar, or financial sanctions can be packaged as a reason to double down on the tailwind. Traders often engage in emotional expectation trading based on this, rather than reallocating assets based on real sell-offs and liquidity shocks. This means that the current crypto market is more about “storytelling premiums” rather than “panic-driven hedging premiums.”
Observing the slow variable dividends of crypto assets from transatlantic games
● The multipolarity proposition is still in the “to be verified” stage: The so-called “risk of transatlantic financial decoupling” is currently more of a proposition to be verified rather than a fact that has already materialized. Neither the dollar's share in global settlements nor the role of U.S. Treasuries in central bank reserves has undergone a change significant enough to be defined as “decoupling.” However, this proposition itself will prompt the market to rethink: will the future monetary and asset system evolve towards a more multipolar direction, forming a structure where the dollar, other sovereign currencies, and non-sovereign assets coexist?
● The game of sanctions tools and reserve diversification: In recent years, the frequent use of financial sanctions tools has prompted some countries to begin adjusting their foreign exchange reserve structures, increasing the weight of non-U.S. assets, regional currencies, and various commodity assets. In this game and defense logic, although non-sovereign crypto assets are still small in scale, they have gained higher bargaining space due to their “non-attachment to a single country” attribute: even if only marginally included in the discussion list, it signifies an enhanced “presence” in the global asset pool.
● Slow variables, not a sudden change button from a single speech: It is important to emphasize that all of this resembles a slow variable evolution process spanning several years or even longer. Adjustments in foreign exchange reserves, reconstruction of international payment networks, and updates to institutional compliance frameworks cannot be abruptly completed due to one of Trump's statements about Europe. For Bitcoin and the broader crypto assets, such events are more of a narrative accumulation node: adding a note to the “geopolitical financial hedging” label, but far from being sufficient to independently redefine the global asset pricing system.
The short noise of verbal sparring and the long yield of the crypto market
In summary, Trump's warning to Europe reflects more of a high-decibel political posture show, currently lacking matching policy execution paths and evidence of capital flows. Whether it is dollar assets or the crypto market, short-term price fluctuations are more dominated by their own cycles, liquidity, and macro interest rate expectations, rather than being directly driven by this “verbal statement.” The media's high-intensity narrative about “transatlantic decoupling” and “collapse of trust in U.S. Treasuries” has yet to find strong empirical support in the U.S. Treasury yield curve, European holding data, or large on-chain migrations.
Before substantial sell-offs and clear policy implementations occur, it is clearly premature to characterize the current situation as “final decoupling.” A more prudent view is that such disputes are catalysts for long-term trends, helping the market repeatedly recall a reality—any sovereign credit tied to its currency and government bonds may be weaponized in extreme times. As similar events unfold periodically, non-sovereign crypto assets like Bitcoin have the opportunity to continuously strengthen the narrative weight of “geopolitical financial hedging,” gaining a bit more long-term premium imagination with each friction. For investors, what truly deserves attention is not the intraday chart following a single speech, but whether this entire narrative chain gradually becomes more taken seriously by mainstream asset allocators over the 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 benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits 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。
