Why Arthur Hayes Favors Ethereum Over Hyperliquid for a 2026 Liquidity Bet

Arthur Hayes’s preference for Ethereum over Hyperliquid is best understood as a macro trade on liquidity, rather than a verdict that Ethereum has superior governance or technology. He believes ETH offers a cleaner, more liquid way to express a coming risk-on move if financial stress eventually forces U.S. policymakers to add liquidity. His stated target is $10,000 for ETH by the end of 2026, alongside $0.50 for Ethena’s ENA and $2 for Ether.fi’s ETHFI—but he has characterized those token targets as speculative. 43

The case for ETH: faster upside than Bitcoin

Hayes remains structurally long Bitcoin through his family office, Maelstrom. But for the nearer term, he has described Ethereum as his number-one pick because he sees potential for it to rise three to five times relatively quickly, while Bitcoin may “grind” higher. 21

At the time of the reported call, ETH was around $2,400, so a $10,000 target implied more than a fourfold move. That is not presented as a model-derived fair value; it is a high-beta outcome tied to a specific macro regime. 314

His preference over Hyperliquid’s HYPE is therefore tactical. ETH is a large, deeply traded asset that he expects to respond broadly to an easing of financial conditions. The supplied reporting does not establish a detailed fundamental critique of Hyperliquid, so the stronger conclusion is simply that Hayes sees ETH as the more direct expression of his liquidity view—not that Hyperliquid is necessarily a flawed protocol or investment.

The macro thesis: financial stress, then more liquidity

Hayes’s argument is conditional. In broad terms, it runs as follows:

1. Heavy AI-related capital spending and credit creation could unwind, creating losses and funding stress.
2. Stress in banks, credit markets, or government-bond markets could force policymakers to stabilize the system.
3. Treasury operations, Federal Reserve balance-sheet expansion, or more explicit yield suppression could increase dollar liquidity.
4. Bitcoin responds first as a signal of prospective liquidity, followed by ETH and higher-beta crypto assets. 6152

Hayes has argued that the AI buildout resembles a credit-sensitive infrastructure boom rather than a simple technology-equity boom. In his view, a slowdown in data-center construction or hyperscaler spending could expose that leverage and prompt a policy response. That is Hayes’s scenario, not a settled forecast for the AI sector. 61

Why Treasury and Fed actions matter more than political rhetoric

For Hayes, the actionable signals are in the machinery of the financial system: Treasury issuance choices, bond buybacks, reserve conditions, and whether the Federal Reserve accommodates market stress.

He has likened Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “Yellen 2.0,” arguing that both confront the political and economic consequences of elevated long-term Treasury yields. In that framing, Treasury buybacks or changes in debt-management operations may function as indirect support for bond-market liquidity, while formal yield-curve control would be a more overt effort to cap yields. 5247

That explains why he places less weight on statements from President Donald Trump. Political comments can affect sentiment, but Hayes is watching policies that can directly alter funding conditions and the supply of liquidity. This remains an interpretation of how markets may react, not a mechanical relationship.

EUR/JPY is Hayes’s “North Star”

The most distinctive part of the thesis is his focus on the euro-yen exchange rate. Hayes expects EUR/JPY to fall from around 185 to 140 or lower by about June 2027, and says that move would herald a large increase in dollar liquidity. 624

His proposed chain is that yen strength—potentially associated with tighter Japanese policy and pressure on yen-funded carry trades—could strain European or global financial markets. Those strains could then prompt a larger U.S. liquidity response.

This is also the thesis’s biggest analytical leap. A falling EUR/JPY need not produce a rapid crypto rally. It could first reflect deleveraging and risk aversion, conditions that can hurt ETH, Bitcoin, and smaller tokens. The policy response Hayes expects may arrive late, be smaller than expected, or not occur at all.

How ETH fits with the $1 million Bitcoin view

There is no necessary conflict between Hayes’s short-term ETH preference and his long-term Bitcoin conviction. His reported positioning separates the two roles:

• Bitcoin: Maelstrom’s structural long-term holding, linked to his broader monetary-debasement thesis. 4
• Ethereum, ENA, and ETHFI: speculative positions intended to benefit from a potential liquidity-driven surge by the end of 2026. 38

In other words, Bitcoin is the core monetary bet; ETH is the higher-beta tactical expression. Reports have described Maelstrom as taking a maximum-risk posture across Bitcoin, Ether, ENA, and ETHFI, which makes the approach especially sensitive to timing. 59

The risks investors should not ignore

The $10,000 ETH scenario requires several conditions to align. The major risks include:

• Timing risk: A credit shock or carry-trade unwind may cause an immediate selloff before any rescue measures emerge.
• Policy risk: Treasury buybacks and Fed balance-sheet actions may not be large enough—or may not work in the way Hayes expects—to create sustained liquidity.
• Currency risk: EUR/JPY may not fall toward 140, or the move may have different implications than Hayes anticipates.
• Asset-specific risk: ENA and ETHFI are more speculative than ETH. A short-term ETHFI move following Hayes’s target was attributed to speculative interest rather than a new protocol event. 8
• Forecast risk: Monetary easing does not automatically translate into a fourfold ETH rally or a seven-figure Bitcoin price.

The skeptical case from Markus Thielen

Markus Thielen of 10x Research disputes the scale of Hayes’s longer-term Bitcoin forecast. Thielen has called a $1 million Bitcoin price by 2030 “mathematically impossible,” arguing that the capital inflows needed would far exceed historical experience. 2119

The broader skeptical case is not that liquidity is irrelevant. It is that liquidity narratives can be correct in direction but poor guides to timing and asset selection. Inflation, a strong dollar, restrictive monetary policy, or a prolonged risk-off period can all delay or undermine the expected crypto payoff.

What BitMEX’s shutdown says about crypto-exchange competition

BitMEX, the derivatives exchange Hayes co-founded, is scheduled to close on September 23, 2026, at 04:00 UTC following a strategic review by operator HDR Global Trading. The company halted new registrations and urged users to close positions and withdraw assets. 3731

The closure does not prove that Binance or OKX alone caused BitMEX’s outcome; the company’s stated explanation is a strategic review. But it does underline a structural challenge for smaller and legacy derivatives venues: liquidity begets liquidity. Traders gravitate toward deep order books, market makers follow customer flow, and the largest platforms can spread compliance, infrastructure, listings, and distribution costs over a larger base.

For traders, the immediate takeaway is practical rather than macroeconomic: BitMEX users should follow the venue’s wind-down instructions and manage positions and withdrawals before the closure timetable. 37

Hayes’s ETH call is ultimately a bet that policy support follows financial stress quickly enough to reward high-beta crypto exposure. It is a coherent macro narrative, but it is not a low-risk forecast—and its most important assumptions are precisely the ones markets are hardest to time.