Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, stated to TheStreet Roundtable that the AI bubble will pop in or around 2028. Hayes said the Federal Reserve and other central banks will print money to save the banking system from bad AI debt they underwrote, but this will not solve the financial crisis. He argued that central banks cannot print their way out of Moore's law, and liquidity will flow to Bitcoin as a result. Hayes' macro predictions have shaped a significant portion of crypto discourse over the past several years, and this specific call addresses how the AI unwind plays out, who pays for it, and where the money goes next.
Hayes Explains Bitcoin's Advantage Over Central Bank Liquidity
Hayes drew a distinction between liquidity and innovation in his thesis. "Central banks cannot print their way out of Moore's law, and this liquidity will flow to Bitcoin," Hayes told the outlet. He explained that printing money can paper over a banking crisis, but it cannot manufacture the computing breakthroughs the AI trade was priced on. Hayes closed the point with a forecast: "Bitcoin will perform better than ever as trillions of dollars of liquidity flow into the hardest money ever created."
According to Hayes, the mechanism behind his prediction is already underway. "The banking system and central banks will create credit to deliver to defense spending programs and AI CAPEX expenditures," he said. "Once the AI bubble pops, the authorities will attempt to print their way out of a financial crisis."
Fed Already Fiscally Dominated According to Hayes
Hayes stated that the Federal Reserve is already trapped by its own balance sheet. "The Fed is already fiscally dominated, which is why I do not believe the newly appointed chairperson Kevin Warsh will be able to shrink the Fed's balance sheet," he said. "Nor will he be able to meaningfully hike rates when the U.S. Treasury must roll over trillions of dollars a year of short-term treasury bills."
Hayes also pointed to stablecoins as a structural shift already underway. "Stablecoins are popular and will disintermediate domestic banking systems in emerging markets," he said, arguing that dollar-backed stablecoins are already moving volumes that rival major payment networks, without the banking license that would normally be required to do so. In his view, traditional banking survives where currencies still hold real purchasing power, largely in advanced Western economies, but loses ground everywhere else.
Hayes Identifies Conditions That Would Invalidate His Thesis
Asked what would invalidate his thesis entirely, Hayes was specific: "The thesis could be invalidated if politicians around the world could implement austerity and get re-elected in democracies or receive implicit support of the elites in autocracies." He implied this is a low-probability outcome, which is why his 2028 call stands as confidently as it does.
Hayes pushed back when asked if younger Americans are turning to Bitcoin by default. "These young Americans turned to pseudo-gambling," he said, pointing to sports betting, zero-day options, and meme coins as proof. With wages stagnant and inflation eating into what little they can save, he argued, most are chasing quick wins, not allocating deliberately into Bitcoin.
FAQ
What did Arthur Hayes predict about the AI bubble?
Arthur Hayes predicted to TheStreet Roundtable that the AI bubble will pop in or around 2028. He stated that central banks will print money to save the banking system from bad AI debt, but this will not solve the financial crisis.
Why does Hayes believe Bitcoin will benefit from an AI bubble collapse?
Hayes argued that central banks cannot print their way out of Moore's law. He stated that printing money can paper over a banking crisis but cannot manufacture the computing breakthroughs the AI trade was priced on, so liquidity will flow to Bitcoin instead.
What would invalidate Hayes' thesis according to his own statement?
Hayes stated his thesis could be invalidated if politicians around the world could implement austerity and get re-elected in democracies or receive implicit support of the elites in autocracies. He implied this is a low-probability outcome.
