The past two months have produced an unusually clear natural experiment in asset behaviour under geopolitical stress. Since the Iran crisis escalated on 28 Feb, Bitcoin has returned close to 23%, while global equities have declined 3.3% and gold — long positioned as the archetypal safe haven — has fallen nearly 9%. This week extended that pattern: Bitcoin added a further 4.5% even as both gold and equities drifted lower. Fund flows confirm the directional conviction, with digital asset investment products attracting approximately $1B in net inflows this week despite continued instability.
The week’s dominant macro event was Kevin Warsh’s Senate confirmation hearing for the Federal Reserve Chair role. Markets entered the session focused on whether he would credibly affirm central bank independence from executive pressure. His answers were received positively — futures barely moved and Bitcoin showed no meaningful reaction. This removes a near-term source of monetary policy credibility risk. Warsh’s record is modestly more hawkish than Powell’s, although his 2026 commentary has run marginally more dovish than anticipated. Our base case remains that confirmation proceeds before the June deadline. The more structurally relevant implication is a likely shift in communication style: Warsh is expected to provide less explicit forward guidance than Powell, which could leave rate-sensitive assets navigating a less clearly signposted path over the coming years.
The clearest institutional theme of the month has been blockchain equities. Month-to-date inflows have reached $615M — a monthly record — with $289M arriving this week alone. Blockchain equity indices are up more than 12% year to date, while Bitcoin mining-focused benchmarks have gained over 31%, compared with 6.9% for the Nasdaq. The performance gap reflects two converging dynamics. First, mining stocks have become a leveraged proxy for Bitcoin in a rising price environment. Second, and more structurally significant, a growing cohort of listed miners is repositioning toward AI infrastructure, using existing power contracts and data-centre footprints to provide compute capacity to hyperscalers. This creates a listed vehicle with simultaneous exposure to two of the strongest equity themes currently available. For institutional allocators whose mandates restrict direct digital asset exposure, this is becoming one of the most practical routes to the theme.
Looking ahead, regulatory clarity remains the pivotal variable. The Clarity Act’s legislative window is narrowing rapidly. If the bill is not signed into law by the end of May, the probability of passage this year declines sharply — with some observers suggesting the timeline could slip to 2030. Polymarket odds have recently fallen to 45%, reflecting growing market scepticism. The distributional impact would not be uniform. Bitcoin and Ethereum carry relatively limited regulatory exposure and are likely to be classified as commodities under most proposed frameworks. Decentralised finance protocols and the broader token market face considerably more structural uncertainty from the outcome.
The deeper significance of Clarity Act passage extends well beyond the crypto-native space. Large traditional banks are already active in digital asset custody, and several have signalled clear intent to scale. What has constrained them is the absence of a clear regulatory foundation for doing so at scale. Passage of the Clarity Act would provide that foundation. More than any individual ETF launch or product approval, that development would mark a genuine institutionalisation of the asset class — one that shifts the demand picture structurally rather than incrementally.