Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley pointed to Bitcoin as a potential hedge as Iran’s rial weakens to roughly 1.4 million per US$1, framing the move as a live example of currency stress colliding with social and financial pressure. He tied the moment to a 40% depreciation since June 2025 and a roughly 44-fold loss in value over the past decade.
He also highlighted the inflation backdrop driving day-to-day strain, citing 42.2% year-on-year inflation in December 2025 and food prices up about 72%. In that context, Horsley argued that rapid purchasing-power erosion can push people to look for alternative ways to protect savings.
The Iranian rial tumbled to 1.43–1.45 million per USD, plunging 7% amid fresh U.S. sanctions, soaring inflation, and scarce foreign inflows. Footage from Tehran’s bazaars shows shopkeepers closing stores in protest, chanting “Don’t be afraid, we are all together” and “Shut it… pic.twitter.com/ky0tqGY5zW
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) December 29, 2025
Why Bitcoin is being framed as a hedge
Horsley described the situation as “economic mismanagement—The story of the past, present, and future,” and said “Bitcoin is a new way for the people to protect themselves.” His core claim is that Bitcoin can function as an alternative store of value when confidence in local money and banks deteriorates.
He linked that loss of confidence to specific pressure points, including the resignation of Iran’s central bank governor and the squeeze on oil revenue from US sanctions. Those factors, as he laid them out, feed public distrust in monetary and banking institutions at the same time the currency is sliding.
He also underscored the practical constraints on adoption inside Iran, noting tight rules on mining and unclear guidance around self-custody. Even when demand for a hedge rises, he emphasized that restrictive or ambiguous domestic rules can make safe access more complicated.
Operational takeaways for institutions and service providers
Iran’s posture, as described, creates a dual risk profile: restrictive mining policy plus uncertainty around self-custody, meaning individuals holding their own private keys instead of relying on a third party. That combination raises jurisdictional risk for residents and increases legal ambiguity for intermediaries trying to support compliant usage.
For VASPs, custodians, and treasury teams evaluating exposure or service provision in high-stress jurisdictions, the text points to concrete priorities: jurisdictional risk assessment, clearly defined custody arrangements, and stronger record retention with AML/KYC processes. The underlying compliance tension is that enabling value preservation can invite heightened scrutiny when legal cover is unclear.
Ultimately, Horsley’s comments spotlight the gap between acute demand for an alternative store of value and policy barriers that limit safe, compliant access. The practical next step is to track any changes in Iran’s mining and custody posture and align controls around traceability and jurisdictional risk.
