Rob Hadick: The Impact of the Iran Situation on the Macro Market and Cryptocurrency

Written by: Unchained

Translated by: Plain Blockchain

When “Middle East Fire” on Twitter collides with Wall Street’s “Economic Iceberg,” the global assets are triggering a “pressure test” in the Middle East. As the US and Israel escalate military actions against Iran, Gabon and US bonds are moving unusually, while Bitcoin, at the storm’s center, shows surprisingly cautious behavior—Is this a “celebration” of safe-haven assets or the calm before the storm?

In this episode, we invite top crypto venture investor Rob Hadick. He will cut through the geopolitical fog and take you directly into the market’s most secretive prayers: from the hyperactive on-chain derivatives of Hyperliquid to the covert battles in Washington over the myth of stablecoins. When war, greed, and the new crypto order meet at the same crossroads, are ordinary investors beginning to see the profound game across borders? This is not just a review of conflicts but a survival investment guide in the chaos era seeking long-term certainty.

Part One: Geopolitical and Macro Market Turbulence

Host: Today’s market situation is essentially volatile whenever major geopolitical events occur worldwide. After the US and Israel attacked Iran, the dollar surpassed $80/barrel, gold and the dollar both rose. Bitcoin’s performance was actually quite resilient, even not following the volatility of other safe-haven assets. Briefly tell us, what have you observed over the past 48 years?

Rob: Yes, this is clearly a very delicate moment for cryptocurrencies in the macro environment. Actually, this subtle prelude existed even before Iran’s regime escalation. I’ve avoided calling it “war” before, but with Pete Hegseth and Trump both using that word within 24 hours, I think we can start calling it the “Iran War.”

Over the weekend, crypto performed surprisingly well. Although global stock markets plunged overnight (the S&P opened down about 1.25%), at least they didn’t all fall—some even rose. Overall, the market seems fragile but stable, not yet on the brink of collapse. We’re still watching what happens in the coming weeks.

Initial narratives suggested we had cut off many Iranian leadership command chains, and the conflict was expected to end soon. But now it seems that might not be the case. Trump said yesterday he expects the conflict to last at least four weeks. In his style, if he says four weeks, it might actually be longer, greatly increasing ongoing economic risks.

Markets were already discussing stagflation or the imminent onset of stagflation. If Middle Eastern oil production continues to be disrupted, plus the potential blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the risk of stagflation rises even more. From a macro perspective, we are facing a very dangerous moment; markets are fragile. So, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are performing positively—they haven’t collapsed but have even slightly rebounded. Crypto markets seem less fragile than stocks, but if stocks really crash, I’m not sure the market can handle it.

Host: Yes. An excellent example of this seismic shift is the trend of the 10-year US Treasury yield. It’s actually rising, which contradicts the usual safe-haven logic of “dollar up, bond prices up (or down).” How do you see this abnormality?

Rob: I think one clear point is that the market fears accelerating inflation, and also fears worsening inflation—entering stagflation.

On the other hand, Kevin Waugh is about to join the Federal Reserve around mid-May. The market is guessing whether he will adopt a hawkish stance or succumb to political pressure—Trump clearly wants rate cuts. This uncertainty confuses everyone.

Another overlooked story: the termination of the IIPA ruling, which deemed previous tariffs as an expansion of administrative power and illegal. Trump immediately announced a new legal tariff approach, lasting at least 180 days, with tariffs up to 15%. Traders in different markets are drawing completely different conclusions, leading to extreme confusion.

Part Two: Long-termism vs. Short-term Risks

Host: Yes, I agree. The panic proves that Fed personnel fluctuations bring rate cut expectations, intertwined with complex inflation, tariffs, and other factors. Let’s broaden the scope and look at the recent pandemic. As you said, the timeline of infectious diseases is highly uncertain. Trump seems to want to reenact the urgent scenario of President Maduro’s ousting, but Iran’s situation is entirely different. If it’s a terrifying regime change, is it in Afghanistan or not? In a country of 93 million, it would be very bloody and chaotic. I don’t think four weeks can resolve this.

In such a context, how do you position yourself? How are your investors positioning? Looking at history (like last year’s tariff disputes or Iran’s nuclear missile facilities), markets often rebound V-shaped, but will this time be different?

Rob: Exactly. We differ from many listeners; we hold very long-term views on the market, with investment assumptions usually spanning a year or even several years. While we look for entry points, our main focus is on the macro global backdrop.

I have a core observation: first, the good performance of cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin over the weekend is a crucial positive signal. Although some say Bitcoin is a store of value and commodities should rise when prices go up, that hasn’t been the case for months. Now, it shows low correlation, and trading patterns indicate sellers are nearly exhausted—most are long-term investors. This bodes well for the long-term trend of crypto.

Second, there are genuine short-term risks. The stock market, after Nvidia’s unexpected earnings, briefly rebounded but quickly fell back. It’s very sensitive now—not because of famous institutional reports causing panic, but because of the overall fragility. I expect the long-term trend for crypto to remain positive (institutional adoption, market structure improvements), but if the S&P 500 pulls back due to issues like hunger crises (10-15%), Bitcoin will find it hard to stay unscathed.

Host: Interestingly, I saw an article in the Financial Times over the weekend saying traders are completely at a loss, and even a single blog post could cause the market to drop 3%. That’s very typical.

I want to emphasize: the long-term prospects of the crypto ecosystem might be the best. Whether it’s Wall Street’s progress in asset tokenization or the strong demand for stablecoins, if you have a long-term scale, these are very promising.

Rob: Exactly.

Host: I studied options positioning data on Deribit this morning, which aligns with your view. Currently, the largest open interest is concentrated in $60,000 put options, especially in the coming days, indicating intense short-term hedging. But once we reach the end of the month, $900,000 to $1 million call options become the focus. The sentiment of “short-term watch, long-term view” is becoming very strong.

Rob: I’m not a military expert, but I think pricing this conflict as a blockade like last June’s might be wrong. The news sentiment this morning has shifted toward adjustment. Initially, everyone thought it would end quickly, but now the US can’t even fully enter Iranian airspace, meaning Iran’s air defenses are still effective.

Furthermore, Trump mentioned wanting regime change yesterday, but the possible “pro-American leader” candidates might already be resisting. The information is very chaotic, and CIA leaks suggest the US isn’t ready for air defense, worrying about regional missile interceptions. All signs point to the conflict’s duration and scope exceeding expectations.

Part Three: Geopolitical Conflicts in Crypto Asset Performance

Host: I previously worked in the US for five years. While not involved in joint weapons, I understand that once bullets start flying, any “meticulous plan” can fail. When Iran’s survival is threatened, they will fight to the end.

Do you think the market has priced in Iran risk? If listeners want to hedge downside risks, what advice do you have?

Rob: I think the current market pricing is quite accurate. The stock market is down a bit over 1%, Bitcoin is sideways with slight gains, which makes sense. Options data also shows people are doing short-term hedges and long-term positioning.

As for risks, besides Iran, there are concerns about AI and employment warnings. For example, Block announced a 40% valuation cut, which is rare for a company of that size. We need to watch whether these signals will spread.

Host: Another interesting point: Bitcoin used to be unfairly treated during weekend mishaps because it’s the only 24/7 traded asset. But now, with tokenized stocks and commodities, are there any trading highlights on weekends?

Rob: Indeed. Weekend trading volume on Hyperliquid is huge, especially for HYPEToken, which has risen about 12% since the attack began.

Host: Maybe HYPE has now become a “safe-haven asset” in crypto.

Rob: Very likely. On Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 market, we see trading volume for tokenized commodities like silver and crude oil surging. Crude oil was the most active asset this weekend.

Tokenized stocks also faced structural issues over the weekend: how do market makers hedge? If the US stock market crashes 10% on Monday, how do on-chain traders settle? Currently, many on-chain stocks are packaged via SPVs, which is clumsy; securities that can’t be redeemed are problematic. I prefer on-chain derivatives over simple packaging.

Host: In the coming days, what indicators will you watch to assess the situation?

Rob: I don’t pay much attention to candlestick charts. My main focus is on “conflict de-escalation” signals. If Trump and Israeli media start discussing prolonged or intensified conflict, that’s a sign of a long war. This will be reflected in the sudden appearance of certain indicators. If crude oil surges to $100, it would be a huge blow to all risk assets, including cryptocurrencies.

Part Four: Dubai’s Role and the Progress of the “Clarification Act”

Host: Before shifting to policy topics, let’s talk about Dubai. Dubai has been trying to position itself as a crypto hub, with a major conference at the end of April. But now, with war at the doorstep and missile debris hitting Dubai hotels, what does this mean for its status as a crypto center if Iran’s retaliation no longer remains immune?

Rob: That’s a keen observation. It’s unfortunate that missile debris hit a hotel on Palm Jumeirah. Although Iranian official media has some propaganda elements, the current situation makes the expatriate community uneasy. Dubai’s forward-looking regulation (like the ADGM framework) is promising, but if the conflict continues, people might hesitate to move. I planned to give a speech in Dubai in 8 weeks; if the situation remains like this in 4 weeks, I’ll have doubts about whether I can still go as scheduled.

Host: Understood. Let’s switch gears and talk about the “Clarification Act” (the agreement). The White House specifically wants banks and the crypto industry to share in stablecoin yields, but it’s clearly not working out. What insider info have you heard?

Rob: Polymarket’s current prediction shows a 70% chance of the bill passing, but it depends on who you ask.

The core conflict is that last year’s version was relatively consistent, but the Senate added many provisions on profit-sharing, tokenized asset definitions, and developer protections, which faced strong industry opposition.

The trickiest part is “profit-sharing.” Issuers like Coinbase want to return part of the interest income generated by stablecoins to users (as loyalty rewards or cashbacks). But banking lobbies are very strong—they worry this will turn stablecoins into de facto “money market funds” or “bank deposits,” eroding banks’ net interest margins. If banks can’t accept compromises on profits, the bill is in trouble.

Host: Banks’ deposits are almost zero interest, while stablecoins offer around 3.5%, which is a threat to banks’ survival. What compromises do you think they might accept?

Rob: Banks might accept that issuers can’t directly “programmatically” pay out yields to end users. But after earning profits, issuers can decide how to distribute those as rewards to customers.

This is already happening. If laws prohibit stablecoin issuers from using income for marketing or cashback, it’s not just protecting the status quo—it’s a step backward for fintech. We need to fight on two fronts: push for the “Clarification Act” legislation and navigate OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) rules to prevent stricter restrictions.

Host: That’s very challenging. I’ve worked at Citibank; the bank faces high regulatory costs and insurance fees. But I believe the competitive environment should be fair.

Rob: Exactly. A good sign is that Scotland recognizes the importance of this bill. If they can reach a compromise and vote before Memorial Day, that’s promising. If it drags past that, political interference in an election year could make everything very complicated.

Part Five: Dragonfly’s New Fund and Industry Outlook

Host: Finally, tell us about your firm. Dragonfly’s fourth fund raised $650 million—congratulations. Why choose this scale now? What are your focus areas going forward?

Rob: Thank you. We’ve been deploying capital in “bad markets” and raising funds in “good markets.” Despite geopolitical turmoil, from an industry cycle perspective, now is a good time to invest in companies because there’s less capital chasing deals and no blind FOMO.

We see strong structural tailwinds: widespread adoption of stablecoins, asset tokenization, and truly product-market-fit DeFi projects like Hyperliquid. It’s the best era to build new financial rails.

Why $650 million instead of $2 billion? Because we want to stay focused. The VC industry has an eternal dilemma: build a “2% management fee asset management firm” or aim for high returns with 20% carry. Some large funds, to manage more money, expand into credit or unfamiliar sectors.

We choose to keep our scale lean, focusing on stablecoins, crypto finance, digital assets, and on-chain assets. We don’t want to lower standards just for size—we aim for the best returns in our vertical.

Host: “Expanding the radius” is really just a polite way of saying “lower standards.”

Rob: Haha, either that or investing in completely different verticals—that’s not our style.

Host: Got it. That’s a great summary. Rob, thank you for sharing today. We’ll definitely invite you back in the future.

Rob: Thanks, Steve. I look forward to it.

Host: Thanks everyone for listening.