HISTORIQUE : Un état nation utilise Bitcoin en temps de guerre

For the first time ever, a state has used Bitcoin as an official means of payment during wartime. This occurred in the conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, a conflict that primarily impacts the oil market but also global financial markets and cryptocurrencies, which are highly correlated with macroeconomics and investor risk appetite. This event marks a significant shift, potentially redefining perceptions of Bitcoin and stablecoins, and influencing how regulators interpret cryptocurrencies. The conflict began on February 28th, with the US and Israel engaging in hostilities with Iran. Iran responded by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which 20% of the world's oil transits. This closure halted the passage of giant oil tankers, leading to a surge in oil prices due to reduced accessibility. On the evening of April 7th, Donald Trump issued a statement on his social media, warning that an entire civilization would perish that night if Iran did not immediately reopen the Strait, giving a precise deadline. Just ten minutes before this deadline, Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz. A ceasefire was negotiated by Pakistan, which acted as an intermediary between the parties, engaging with both Washington and Iran. Upon the ceasefire announcement, the S&P 500 rose by nearly 3%. Bitcoin's price surged from $66,000 to almost $73,000, and most cryptocurrencies rebounded. Even the price of a barrel of oil, which had soared, calmed down and lost 13% in minutes. This rapid increase led to significant liquidations for those who had bet against Bitcoin, totaling $600 million in liquidations, with almost $430 million specifically from people shorting cryptocurrencies. However, the most intriguing aspect of this situation is not the ceasefire itself, but what came with it. The deal, accepted by both Washington and Iran, included a condition: a toll. Any new tanker passing through the Strait of Hormuz was required to pay $1 per barrel. This payment could be made in Chinese Yuan, stablecoins, or Bitcoin. Iran specified that this was part of the deal and allowed a window of a few minutes for ships entering the Strait to settle the payment in cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin. The reason for this preference is that these are currencies that cannot be confiscated or blocked by US sanctions. Iran is currently under sanctions and cannot use the SWIFT network for settlements, nor the US dollar. The payment process outlined involves a ship's arrival, a request for passage, evaluation of the request against various criteria, issuance of a crypto payment address, and then verification, followed by a pass and an escort through the Strait by the Revolutionary Guards, who control the site. While $1 per barrel may seem small, a supertanker can carry over 2 million barrels, meaning nearly $2 million in commission per ship passage. With multiple ships passing on some days, this represents a significant additional revenue stream. While the Yuan is an authorized settlement currency, not all countries use or wish to use it, and its use depends on Beijing's authority. Stablecoins offer an alternative, but major stablecoin issuers like Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC) can freeze funds based on regulatory demands or sanctions. Over 7,000 wallets and $3.3 billion have already been frozen by these issuers. This is why, as reported by the Financial Times, Iran prefers Bitcoin for transaction settlements. Bitcoin is an algorithm with no CEO, preventing censorship of transactions or wallets. It is an operational tool even in wartime, and its technology cannot be manipulated by either party in a conflict. Paradoxically, despite preferring Bitcoin payments, Iran already holds over $707 million in USDT, indicating a portion of their reserves are in dollar-backed stablecoins. This is ironic given that the US is voting on the Genus Act to promote dollar stablecoin development globally, which provides the US with control. However, by developing and giving value to such a tool, adversaries can also use it, potentially against the US. The substantial amount in Iranian reserves highlights this double-edged sword. There are also rumors, though unconfirmed, that some payments in this deal might have been made in USD One, a stablecoin associated with the Trump family, which would be highly ironic if true. A second paradox lies within Iran itself. While the government uses cryptocurrencies to circumvent sanctions, its citizens are also using Bitcoin to escape the devaluation of their local currency, the Rial, which has lost 90% of its value since 2018, with annual inflation between 40-50%. Since 2025 and subsequent protests, Iranians have been massively withdrawing their cryptocurrencies from platforms to hold them in non-custodial wallets, maintaining access to their finances and emancipating themselves from the depreciating local currency. The same technology that allows the Revolutionary Guards to bypass restrictions is used daily by the populace to gain control over their finances. Around 15 million Iranians use cryptocurrency, representing a massive adoption driven by necessity. This geopolitical precedent is significant for cryptocurrency adoption. It's the first time a state has proposed a toll payable in cryptocurrency. If successful for the Strait of Hormuz during wartime, it could be considered for other vital waterways like Suez, Panama, or Malacca. This raises a fundamental question: Is Bitcoin a tool for financial freedom or a tool for circumventing financial sanctions? The answer depends on one's perspective. When a country is stripped of financial tools by an adversary during a conflict, it is often perceived as an injustice, prompting the sanctioned country to seek ways to keep its economy running and make payments, whether for war or other purposes. Similarly, when a national currency fails, people turn to cryptocurrency to preserve value, circulate funds, and make daily payments. Ultimately, the question of whether it's a tool for circumvention or financial freedom is misphrased. Technology is neutral; its impact depends on its use. We should judge its applications, not the technology itself. This is akin to the internet: is it for communication and education, or manipulation? The internet hasn't been banned; certain uses are prohibited, but not the tool or network itself. Bitcoin presents the same dilemma, but for payments and value instead of information. As of April 9th, two days after the initial ceasefire, the conflict has resumed, and the ceasefire has collapsed. Israel reportedly attacked Lebanon, leading Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz again. The US asserts Lebanon was not part of their agreement, while Iran argues the attack undermines the spirit of the deal. This situation will prompt many countries to reconsider the importance of stablecoins and the role cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will play in future conflicts. The Strait of Hormuz, a 40-kilometer stretch, will likely be a significant chapter in the history of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency adoption. The situation is rapidly evolving, and further changes are probable. While not a geopolitical expert, the aim is to neutrally contextualize these events concerning Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and their global adoption. This announcement from the Strait of Hormuz conflict will likely mark a historical moment for cryptocurrency adoption, especially Bitcoin. While Chinese Yuan payments have been confirmed on-chain, no transparent Bitcoin blockchain transactions have yet been identified. If they are, it may warrant further discussion.