On March 23, 2026, before the market opened in the Eastern Time Zone of the United States, the Trump administration announced externally that it had reached "15 points of consensus" with Iran, the most frequently cited aspect being Iran's commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, and statements regarding the reopening plan for the Strait of Hormuz. This signal quickly shifted the geopolitical narrative, causing trading to switch from risk-off to repricing mode. At the close of the day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq both saw daily gains of over 2%, and the small-cap representative Russell 2000 index also rose about 2%. Overall risk appetite appeared to be clearly restored, but energy stocks, technology stocks, and cryptocurrency-related stocks followed divergent paths. Expectations of eased geopolitical risks reduced the risk premium of traditional energy while sharply hedging against bets such as the probability of oil rising to $90 increasing to 82% (Polymarket data)—the core question for the market post-event became whether oil should fall or rise, and how structural rotation in US stocks and the repricing of crypto assets would unfold.

Rumors of the Reopening of Hormuz Shifting Global Oil Routes

The Strait of Hormuz itself is the geographical origin of this pricing divergence. According to mainstream statistics, around 20% of the world's crude oil maritime transport passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway long regarded as the Middle East's energy "valve": once tensions rise, expectations for oil supply are immediately cut off, with price sensitivity far exceeding ordinary supply and demand disruptions. Therefore, when Trump on March 23 framed "the consensus with Iran" alongside the "reopening plan for the Strait of Hormuz", the market instinctively bundled these two together as a combined signal of de-escalating geopolitical conflict and restoring energy route accessibility.

In official statements, Iran's commitment "not to develop nuclear weapons" and the plan for "the reopening of the Strait" were viewed by some funds as the starting point for medium- to long-term risk alleviation: a de-escalation of nuclear issues suggests that sanctions could be marginally relaxed, and improved expectations for passage through the Strait point to a reduction in supply shock risks. This narrative often translates in macro traders' models into lowering crude oil risk premiums, stabilizing or even retreating oil prices. However, looking at the trading that day, the energy sector's reaction was noticeably more subdued and even pessimistic—against a backdrop of rising major indices, some energy stocks fell, contrasting with the overall upward movement of risk assets. This contrast laid the groundwork for what followed: under the same "geopolitical easing" headline, different assets interpreted it to mean entirely different things within their pricing frameworks.

Oil Price Betting Heats Up: The Market Is Not Fully Buying It

The most direct divergence is reflected in market expectations data. After the event, the decentralized prediction market Polymarket saw the probability of "oil breaking $90" rise to around 82%, meaning participants collectively bet real money that "high oil prices remain likely". As a typical predictive market, this figure is not a linear prediction of spot market trends but rather a pricing of the comprehensive results of macro and geopolitical factors over the next several months—in other words, traders are asking: Can this negotiation truly change the supply dynamics in the Middle East, or is it just a tactical pause in "easing narratives"?

This stands in stark contrast to Trump's own public statements. According to his declaration, "once an agreement is reached, oil prices could fall sharply", presenting a typical official optimistic tone: assuming conflict is politically resolved, risk premiums would be quickly released, and crude oil prices would return to lower, more "reasonable" levels. However, the 82% high probability given by the prediction market is responding in another language—not everyone believes this "shift" will immediately suppress oil prices. This misalignment essentially reflects differing judgments on the feasibility of the negotiations, the path of sanctions, and the balance of power in the Middle East.

Peeling back the narrative shell reveals contradictions that are not straightforward. Firstly, the so-called geopolitical easing does not mean that production will immediately increase; if the pace of sanctions, OPEC+ strategies, and Iran's export recovery all have time lags, supply-side tightness expectations can remain, while economic recovery and demand elasticity may continue to support prices. Secondly, the market still harbors doubts about the path and pace of sanction adjustments. Some traders worry that other players in the Middle East may "hedge" the outcomes of the US-Iran negotiations through production cuts or disruptions to maritime security, preventing overall supply from becoming genuinely loose. Thirdly, and more fundamentally, there are concerns about the Middle Eastern landscape: a single negotiation does not rewrite the long-term security architecture; the "implied option value" of high-risk regions on oil prices remains, and the 82% high oil price probability, to some extent, is pricing these uncertainties.

US Stock Structure Splits: Energy Fades, Technology Celebrates

From the performance in the secondary market, March 23, 2026, resembles a snapshot of a structural bull market. At closing, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq both saw daily gains of over 2%, while the small-cap representative Russell 2000 index rose about 2%; this data superficially tells a story of "overall risk appetite restoration": at the macro level, geopolitical risks temporarily downgraded, recession fears eased for a phase, and funds flowed back into equity markets from defensive assets, resulting in widespread gains at the index level.

However, beneath the smooth curve of the indices, cracks within the sectors are very clear. Research briefings indicate that Western Oil fell about 3.8% on the day, while Nvidia rose about 2%, the trends of the two nearly mirror each other: the traditional energy sector is under pressure under the narrative of declining geopolitical risk premium, while high-growth tech stocks are favored under the logic of "interest rates and risk appetite resonating to repair". For valuation models, the former means that the future cash flow hedge function is weakened and the demand for safety margins decreases; the latter implies that in discounted models, the risk appetite factor is raised, and forward growth expectations are maintained or even lifted, leading to further valuation expansions.

This structural split is not random. For energy stocks, if the market gradually believes in "the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz", easing of marginal sanctions, and reduced probabilities of supply disruptions, then valuations built on high-risk premiums over the past months need to be compressed again; capital would prefer to hold these "cash cows" at lower multiples rather than continue to pay high prices for potential surges in oil prices. In contrast, for tech leaders like Nvidia, seen as core assets in AI and high-performance computing, the macro geopolitical downgrade combined with assumptions that "US tech regulations will not tighten in the short term" has, in fact, raised the discounted value of their "growth story". The same news, within the valuation frameworks of energy and tech stocks, sends completely opposite signals.

Crypto Stocks Rise: Risk Appetite Rebounds

Outside the tech stock celebrations, crypto-related US stocks also significantly benefited from this round of risk sentiment recovery. Research briefings indicate that stocks in the US crypto sector, such as MSTR and COIN, rose collectively on the day, with increases ranging from about 1% to 10%; it should be emphasized that this range of data comes from a single source, and specific individual stock changes still await multi-source validation, but directional signals are clear: funds have made a "free ride-like" risk appetite increase in the crypto sector using equity assets.

This linkage is not hard to understand. Whether it is MSTR, which amplifies through Bitcoin balance sheets as "quasi-spot leverage", or COIN, which is highly bound to trading volume and the crypto ecosystem cycle, they are structurally similar to high-growth tech stocks: high volatility, high beta, and extremely sensitive to future regulatory and macro liquidity expectations. When geopolitical risks recede and overall market sentiment improves, these assets naturally become amplifiers of "risk appetite recovery"; the bets placed here do not focus on the certainty of short-term profits, but rather on the "next cycle's upward movement" and the valuation re-evaluation elasticity it brings.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that some institutional investors are expressing their combined views on the crypto sector and inflation hedging through equity assets rather than on-chain spot. On one hand, directly allocating on-chain assets raises higher demands for compliance, custody, and accounting; on the other hand, buying targets like MSTR or COIN allows indirect binding of Bitcoin and the upward trend of the crypto ecosystem within existing securities accounts and compliance frameworks, while adding "second-order benefits" from company operational leverage and business expansion. In this event, crypto stocks rose alongside tech stocks, indicating the market categorizing them into the same type of "high-elasticity risk assets", also laying the groundwork for subsequent sentiment transmission in crypto spot and futures.

From Washington to Shanghai: Safe Assets

Across the ocean, the geopolitical narrative is interpreted in a different context. Research briefings note that Chinese media, following the news of the latest US-Iran negotiations, took the opportunity to reinforce the narrative of "safe assets" in the local stock market, repeatedly linking the situation in the Middle East with global supply chain security and the technological autonomy discourse. This discourse strategy is not merely a short-term interpretation of oil prices or a single asset, but reflects an "internal certainty" mirrored by external uncertainties, emphasizing specific domestic sectors as both defensive allocations and long-term foundational assets.

Within this narrative framework, "without allocating to this Chinese industrial chain, investors' global tech layout is incomplete" has been frequently quoted. This statement from the Invesco Group essentially underscores China's irreplaceable role in the global tech manufacturing chain: whether it's consumer electronics, photovoltaic energy storage, or new energy vehicles, the concentration of upstream materials, manufacturing, and engineering capabilities makes Chinese assets not only a "cost advantage" but also a structurally essential commodity. In an increasingly complex geopolitical context, this essential commodity attribute is easily rebranded as a "safe vertical", giving rise to market labels of "safe assets".

In contrast, the US market in this round chose to embrace risk through tech stocks and crypto stocks, viewing geopolitical easing as an opportunity to restart growth narratives and enhance risk budgets; whereas the Chinese market tends to emphasize defensive attributes and supply chain security, integrating similar events into a narrative path of "rising external risks - internal safe asset value re-evaluation". Behind these two paths are different understandings and games of investors on national security, technology sovereignty, and capital returns under different institutional environments: the former tends to believe that innovation and capital markets can absorb geopolitical fluctuations, while the latter emphasizes "control and visibility" in an uncertain world.

New Games and Crypto Clues After Geopolitical Easing

Based on the aforementioned market performance, a clear but not intuitive logical chain can be seen: under the expectation of eased geopolitical risks, the original expectation of falling oil prices did not decline synchronously, but was further reinforced in the expectation market as the probability of oil breaking $90 rising to 82%; meanwhile, there appeared a structural divergence within US stocks where the energy sector was under pressure, and tech and crypto-related assets were celebrating. The root of this apparent contradiction is that different assets interpret "easing" entirely differently: the energy market continues to price the uncertainties of the negotiations and the deep risks of the Middle Eastern landscape, while the growth and crypto sectors in US equities are more focused on the compression of short-term risk premiums and rebound in liquidity risk appetite.

It is important to emphasize that this round of negotiations remains full of unknowns. Research briefings clearly state that the specific terms of the "15 points of consensus" mentioned by Trump have not been disclosed, and Iran's official response to the negotiation progress has also been absent; the timing for signing the agreement and the specific timetable for reopening the Strait of Hormuz remain in an informational vacuum. In this context, the volatility of crude oil and related assets is likely to continue to amplify: each message adjustment, clarification of positions, or reversal of public opinion could trigger a new round of pricing in the futures and derivatives markets, forming indirect shocks and opportunities for high-volatility targets, including crypto assets.

For investors, laying out positions in tech stocks and crypto stocks in such a framework requires an operational framework that addresses both risk appetite recovery and negotiation rebound risks. On one hand, the current situation can serve as a litmus test for observing "whether high beta assets can take over": it’s important to track the dynamics of the Nasdaq, Russell 2000, and crypto-related US stocks (both intraday and weekly beta), and oil prices as well as macro contracts in prediction markets to determine whether the recovery of risk sentiment is overly euphoric or entering a new phase. On the other hand, it is necessary to maintain high sensitivity to key geopolitical and policy signals: whether the Trump administration and Iran subsequently release specific terms, whether the passage arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz receive support from multiple parties, and whether there is any internal fluctuation in US Middle East policy, all of these will directly impact the crude oil curve and inflation expectations, thus altering the discount rates and risk premiums of tech and crypto assets.

At the strategic level, a more robust approach is to view tech stocks and crypto stocks as a single risk group: by controlling the overall exposure of the portfolio to these types of assets, rather than viewing single targets' "stories" in isolation. In the phase where risk appetites gradually recover while the specifics of the agreement remain unclear, employing a gradual accumulation, options hedging for oil prices and index tail risks, and closely tracking changes in prediction markets and interest rate curves can allow participation in the emotional rebound in growth and crypto while preserving buffer space against negotiation rebounds or even renewed geopolitical escalation.

Join our community to discuss and become 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。