From April 15 to 16, East 8 Zone time, the ceasefire negotiations between Iran and the United States and Israel and Lebanon advanced simultaneously, with security passage plans for the Strait of Hormuz also quickly brought to the table: on one side, Iran is reported to be considering partially opening key maritime areas for passage, negotiating through intermediaries like Pakistan to accelerate turnover; on the other side, Israel is said to have issued three conditions for a ceasefire with Lebanon, which has been interpreted by many as potentially linked to the ceasefire timeline between the U.S. and Iran. In this period where the battlefield and negotiations intertwine, the S&P 500 has reached a new high since the outbreak of war, and derivatives trading related to blockchain and macroeconomic, geopolitical factors is similarly optimistic, forming a stark contrast. Geopolitical risks have not been alleviated, and whether the blockade of Hormuz is “completely successful” remains to be verified, but from U.S. stocks to blockchain derivatives, funds seem to choose to continue pricing with optimism and risk, the underlying logic and implied costs are reshaping the way risks are priced in a Middle Eastern crisis.

Ceasefire Chips in Play: Hormuz and...

In the latest round of ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, according to A/C sources, Israel has thrown three ceasefire conditions to Lebanon and has released a key signal: the ceasefire timeline may be linked to the ceasefire timeline between the U.S. and Iran. This means that the northern frontline conflict is no longer a standalone script but is tied into a larger framework of U.S.-Iran negotiations, and the ceasefire point itself is designed to be a negotiable chip. The binding of the timeline leaves room for the U.S. to maneuver between the two fronts on one hand, and on the other hand, it turns the market's expectation of “whether the conflict is controllable” into a variable that can be adjusted repeatedly.

At the same time, the Strait of Hormuz has shifted from a point of military risk to the core of financial and diplomatic games. Information from source A indicates Iran is considering a "partial passage" scheme in the Strait, opening passage rights for specific waters or specific categories of vessels without fully lifting the blockade. In contrast, source C points out that already10 Iranian vessels have been intercepted, becoming a direct annotation of the blockade's intensity and execution will. Since the information on "whether the blockade is completely successful" remains to be verified, all parties maintain ambiguity in their public statements, but this ambiguity enhances the Hormuz's bargaining chip attribute at the negotiating table - it can release soothing signals through limited openings while being able to escalate the blockade and raise prices on demand at any moment.

A deeper layer of bargaining chip involves frozen assets. Source C shows that the scale of frozen assets outside of Iranexceeds 6 billion dollars, these funds are viewed as hard bargaining chips in U.S.-Iran transactions: once partially unfrozen and linked to security arrangements in Hormuz, Iran could exchange actual economic benefits and limited sanctions easing without crossing military red lines; while the U.S. can shape Iran's behavior regarding the Strait issue using financial leverage without directly increasing troop levels. Because the unfunding of assets and passage arrangements are written into the informal script of great power transactions, the Strait of Hormuz has evolved from a geographical choke point to a compound of financial assets and negotiation expectations.

But this chain of transactions is not smooth. Source C quotes the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei's statement - the U.S. position has been criticized as "wavering and contradictory", one hand sending signals of dialogue and easing sanctions, on the other hand, implementing pressure through intercepting vessels and strengthening military exercises. This inconsistency makes every rumor of ceasefire and passage bear obvious exploratory and tug-of-war colors. For the market, the core of uncertainty lies not in whether there is a ceasefire, but in: whether the ceasefire and opening are substantive steps or merely posture adjustments before the next round of pricing.

Boiling Conflict and New Highs in S&P: Where Did the Risk Premium Go?

While the battlefields and strait situations are constantly pulling, according to data from source A, the S&P 500 has reached a new high since the outbreak of war, suggesting that the overall risk premium in the U.S. stock market seems to have been compressed to extremely low levels. Investors are beginning to price in “a ceasefire will eventually be reached, and the conflict can be managed” as a premise for an early soft landing in the Middle East: military, energy, and other beneficiary sectors have gained premiums in early impacts, while later, technology and high-growth sectors lead the index upward again, as if the war is merely macro noise rather than a source of systemic risk.

In sharp contrast to the optimism of the stock market is the real pressure in energy. Source A cites the latest Beige Book from the Federal Reserve indicating that energy costs have increased across the entire region, putting substantial pressure on corporate profit margins and household expenditures. In other words, at the micro level, the U.S. economy is paying real costs for the situation in the Middle East, but at the macro asset level, the S&P 500 is choosing to continue rising under the shadow of war; this “cost increase - stock market surge” dislocation is essentially a result of the market viewing the conflict as a “controllable event”: as long as there is no uncontrollable blockade in Hormuz, and as long as the ceasefire deadline is seen as an extendable buffer zone, the risk premium will continue to be compressed.

Within this round of pricing logic, the market interpretation of Hormuz's “partial passage expectations” and “linking ceasefire timelines” has been internalized into a new premise: the conflict can be managed within a framework of time and space. Investors believe that even if a complete ceasefire cannot be achieved, they can shift risk across the timeline through periodic openings of channels and continuous extensions of the ceasefire periods, thus avoiding a one-time, irreversible large eruption. Therefore, the originally amplified war premium is instead transformed into a bet on the “capability of policy and negotiation to provide support.”

However, in this optimistic pricing, tail risks have not disappeared but are instead buried in the further future. If negotiations reverse - for example, the ceasefire conditions break down, the partial passage scheme is withdrawn, or one party opts to replace “verified blockade” narratives with “substantial blockade” - energy prices and risk assets may be forced into simultaneous dramatic repricing: oil and freight prices jump, inflation expectations rise again, and the high valuations of U.S. stocks alongside high leverage in the blockchain will be pressed into a narrower channel. This risk has not been sufficiently reflected in current prices, but rather postponed to the moment of uncontrollability, only to erupt all at once.

Safe-Haven Funds Turn: A New Macro Narrative for Decentralized Derivatives

As traditional markets continue to take risks under the shadow of war, some hedge and speculative funds choose another track - moving macro and geopolitical risks onto the blockchain. According to source A, the trading volume ofnon-crypto assets on decentralized derivatives platforms surged by 580%, with the main growth being assets highly related to macro and geopolitical factors: crude oil, energy indices, U.S. stock indices, and even specific asset baskets related to the Middle East. The situation in the Middle East and expectations for oil prices are no longer just stories at offline brokerage and commodity trading desks, but are rapidly being disassembled into contract fragments that can be traded frequently on-chain.

The most typical example is Hyperliquid. According to source A, its platform has seennon-crypto asset trading account for 70%, which means that the majority of traders have regarded it as a “on-chain macro exchange” rather than a traditional crypto contract platform. On-chain participants are beginning to treat the Middle East situation, energy prices, and U.S. stock indices as new speculative engines - no longer limited to BTC and ETH fluctuations, but capturing volatility gains through long and short positions in a multi-dimensional narrative of “war - ceasefire - oil prices - stock indices.” The macro narrative has, for the first time, entered the main stage of the on-chain derivatives ecosystem in such a direct manner.

The drivers for funds moving onto the chain are not complex. On one hand, on-chain derivatives provide higher leverage, lower entry barriers, and a natural ambiguity regarding KYC/regulatory boundaries, making it possible for some hedge funds, crypto-native funds, and high-net-worth individuals to construct highly offensive macro positions without being fully constrained by traditional brokerage rules. On the other hand, during periods of geopolitical conflict, regulated platforms may face trading restrictions, higher margin requirements, or even the regulatory pressure of halting specific varieties; the on-chain platforms take on the risk-tolerant funds that have been driven away or self-transferred in a posture of “regulatory arbitrage.”

The rise of this “on-chain macro trading” is changing how the crypto market is linked to real geopolitical risks. In the past, crypto assets mostly reflected the macro environment indirectly through “risk appetite indices”; today, on-chain has already allowed for direct trading of war, energy, and stock indices themselves - the crypto market has shifted from being passively pressured to consciously undertaking and amplifying geopolitical risks. This means that when new turning points occur in Middle Eastern negotiations, prices may first explode on platforms like Hyperliquid, then be communicated back to BTC, ETH, and a broader range of crypto assets through clearing and emotional spillover.

Wall Street Bets on Capitol Hill: A Ten Million Dollar Signal

The migration of funds is not only happening on exchanges but also in corridors of power. According to source A, the traditional Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald has donated 10 million dollars to the crypto political action committee (PAC) around mid-April in East 8 Zone time, bundling the Middle Eastern conflict, rising energy costs, and Washington's regulatory games together. This timing coincides with the intensifying battlefield situation and the Federal Reserve's Beige Book once again warning about rising energy costs.

In an environment of rising energy costs and high geopolitical risks, traditional financial institutions are choosing to increase their bets on crypto lobbying power, motivated not only to secure a survival space for the crypto industry but also to bet on a future comprehensive “how geopolitical risks can be traded through compliant products” regulatory design. For institutions like Cantor, wars and blockades will increase demand for hedging tools and alternative assets, and if crypto can capture these demands more quickly and with higher liquidity, then reinforcing discourse on Capitol Hill ahead of time means gaining an advantage in the next round of regulatory restructuring.

The targets of these political funds are highly indicative: crypto regulatory frameworks, compliant derivatives, and tokenized assets. Once relevant legislation and rules take shape, high-frequency geopolitical risks like those in the Middle East could have an opportunity to be systematically embedded into compliant on-chain and off-chain products - from futures and options to tokenization of indices related to conflict zones, war will no longer just be news and diplomatic topics but further “financialized” into standardized, tradable risk units. The 10 million dollar donation serves more like a prepayment for this future structure.

Putting Wall Street's donations and the upsurge in on-chain derivatives trading into the same picture reveals a clear path: from the battlefield to the ballot box. The war guides the volatility in energy and stock markets, which in turn births a demand for hedging and speculative activities; some of this demand is taken on-chain while the rest is sent to Capitol Hill, pushing the construction of frameworks around crypto and tokenized assets. Geopolitical conflicts are being doubly digested in this process - one is financialization at the price level, while the other is politicization at the regulatory level; and the market's indulgence of “the more war, the better” is further solidified by this institutional expectation.

Multiple Intermediaries in Play: From Pakistan to DeFi

If Hormuz and frozen assets are the overt bargaining chips, then intermediary countries and financial intermediaries are the invisible hands in this game. Source C indicates that U.S.-Iran negotiations are being advanced via Pakistan as an intermediary; in cases where direct dialogue is difficult to unfold publicly, regional middle powers act as "messengers" and buffers. Countries like Pakistan, on one hand, have certain influence over Iran due to religious and geopolitical ties; on the other hand, they need to maintain balance with the U.S. in matters of security and financial cooperation, making them naturally suitable to play a mediating role between “easing conflict and restructuring energy routes.”

In parallel with diplomatic intermediaries, there is also a matrix of intermediaries in the financial arena: Wall Street institutions like Cantor, crypto PACs, and DeFi platforms like Hyperliquid together form a network for the transmission of funds and rules. The former promotes regulatory boundaries in and out of Capitol Hill, paving the way for the compliant financialization of geopolitical risks; the latter experiments with high leverage macro trading yet to be fully regulated on-chain; while the crypto PAC serves as a political chip, translating industry demands into legislative terms such as “employment,” “innovation,” and “national competitiveness.” The more intermediaries there are, the greater the space for risks to be split, packaged, and resold at different levels.

This chain from diplomacy to finance connects expectations of ceasefire, energy prices, stock market performance, and on-chain risk appetite into a complex closed loop: diplomatic intermediaries promote U.S.-Iran and Israel-Lebanon negotiations to release partial easing signals; the energy market reflects passage expectations in the form of futures curves; the stock market "pays tribute" to soft landing narratives through valuation expansion; and on-chain derivatives layer high leverage on top of all this, converting speculations on negotiation outcomes into instant PNL. Each ring digests the risks of the previous one while creating new uncertainties for the next.

The benefits of having multiple intermediaries are to avoid any single node's mistake from immediately triggering a systemic crisis; but the cost is that information gets increasingly distorted and delayed during the transmission process. The ambiguous wording in diplomatic mediation, once processed through media and social networks, often only reaches trading terminals with simplified labels like “partial passage” or “ceasefire is near”; while high-frequency trading on-chain amplifies price fluctuations based on this incomplete information. The result is that the market can easily develop a certain “numbness” and mispricing toward risks in the short term—considering highly conditional ceasefire expectations as nearly definitive outcomes, and treating still unimplemented security plans for the Strait as already effective shields.

Ceasefire Not Priced Yet: Invisible Variables for Crypto Traders

In summary, the current landscape can be summarized as: ceasefire negotiations are repeated, Hormuz's security plan has not truly been implemented, but U.S. stocks and on-chain derivatives have already placed bets on a soft landing. The S&P 500 reaching new highs after the war suggests that traditional assets view the Middle East as “manageable volatility”; and the 580% increase in non-crypto asset trading on decentralized derivatives and Hyperliquid seeing non-crypto assets account for as much as 70% indicates that on-chain funds are actively embracing this geopolitical game, treating macro and conflicts as new fodder for speculation.

For crypto traders, the real risks to be wary of are two often overlooked invisible variables: first, negotiation deadlines—the linkage of ceasefire conditions to the U.S.-Iran ceasefire means that every deadline could potentially trigger volatility; second, energy supply shocks—if Hormuz’s “partial passage” expectations break down, sudden jumps in freight and oil prices will quickly transmit to inflation and interest rate expectations, subsequently impacting high-leverage positions on-chain through the risk appetite chain. There is a natural mismatch between the rhythm of updates on macro and geopolitical information and the response speed of on-chain clearing engines, and once the narrative flips, the explosive points often reveal themselves on-chain first.

On the operational level, this means: selectively focusing on on-chain contracts and capital flows tied to the Middle East, energy, and U.S. stock indices, leveraging the liquidity and volatility brought by the rise of on-chain macro trading; however, consciously avoiding making directional bets based on unverified statements of “comprehensive blockade” or subjective judgments of regime stability. Under the current information system, the narrative of “comprehensive success” of the Hormuz blockade remains to be verified; any extreme bets built upon this are essentially handing positions to unconfirmed premises.

Looking ahead, once ceasefire terms and passage plans for the Strait become truly clear, the focus of the market may shift from “pricing ceasefire expectations” to “pricing a new regional order”: crude oil and freight rates will re-anchor long-term supply expectations, U.S. stocks will reassess profit centers in military and energy chains, and the crypto market will gradually shift from the current phase of “event-driven macro trading” to a more mature phase of “rules-driven tokenized assets.” At that point, the linkage between crypto and traditional assets will no longer just be an emotional resonance but will enter a structurally tighter new paradigm through compliant derivatives, tokenized indices, and cross-market arbitrage.

Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit 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。