Why are more and more people convinced that Bitcoin’s importance will continue to rise? The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most critical oil chokepoints; approximately 20% of the world's oil passes through here. If a "transit fee" were ever imposed—even at just $1 per barrel—based on a daily flow of 20 million barrels, that would total $20 million per day. If you convert that amount into BTC, it’s roughly 281 BTC per day. The key point isn’t the number itself, but the comparison it draws: Bitcoin’s new daily supply is currently only about 450 BTC. In other words, if a massive real-world settlement scenario like the Strait of Hormuz were to emerge, the transit fees from just a single strait could theoretically absorb 62% of Bitcoin’s daily new supply. What this chart is really trying to convey isn’t that this "will definitely happen," but rather: as long as the real world sees large-scale, continuous, and cross-border capital flows that require neutral settlement, Bitcoin’s total volume is actually much smaller than people imagine. This is also why the chart mentions: if stablecoins can be frozen by the U.S., then the importance of neutral settlement assets will be repriced. Many used to view BTC as a speculative asset. But from another perspective, it may be "pricing in" future global friction, capital controls, and settlement risks. In other words: BTC isn't necessarily rising because people "love" it more; it’s rising because the world increasingly needs an asset that cannot be easily frozen by a single point of failure. #霍尔木兹海峡再次关闭 $BTC