I just came across an interesting news report from Tehran: Iran has begun charging tolls for passage through the Strait of Hormuz using stablecoins instead of dollars—an escalation that reflects an effort to challenge the dominance of the world’s leading currency at a deeper level than we’ve seen before.

According to the information received, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister publicly confirmed in early April that large oil tankers passing through this strait must pay tolls to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, clearly cutting off dollar-based payment channels. The system completed its technical installation in late March—far earlier than the market had expected.

What draws my attention is how Iran designed this system. They accept only two payment methods: transfers in Chinese yuan, or stablecoins pegged to the dollar. This structure reflects a new way of thinking about derivatives of financial functions—creating a new layer of payment that does not depend on the traditional SWIFT system. Their customs authority has set up a dedicated window for exchanging digital currencies on Kish Island, so that funds can be converted into rials quickly.

The fees are structured in a tiered, step-like manner, depending on each country’s geopolitical relationship. Allies such as China and Russia pay only $0.5–0.7 per barrel, while neutral countries pay $1. In contrast, countries with close ties to the U.S., such as Japan and South Korea, must pay $1.2–$1.5. The U.S. and its allies are banned from access entirely.

This is not just about collecting tolls. It is the creation of a strategically meaningful derivative of a new payment function. The Strait of Hormuz accounts for 21% of global crude oil transport. Ships pass through on average more than 20 times per day. If this system continues, it is expected that more than $20 billion in stablecoins will flow through digital wallets controlled by Iran.

What makes this different from El Salvador’s move to make Bitcoin legal tender is its commercial scale. This derivative of financial functions is actually enforceable in practice—not merely a political symbol.

But the risks are also clear. USDT and USDC remain pegged to the dollar and are tracked by the United States. As a result, this becomes a risk point that ship owners and financial institutions may face from sanctions compliance. The International Liability Insurance Association issued a warning that paying expenses to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could cause insurance policies to lapse.

That is why some ship owners are starting to consider alternative routes, such as traveling through Pakistan—which has only recently allowed 20 international oil tankers to sail under the Pakistani flag.

Notably, Iran is not the only country doing this. Russia has also announced similar fee policies for the northern route and is considering accepting payments in digital currency. The logic of digital currencies is reshaping the payment infrastructure of global energy trade. When commercial vessels pay in USDT via blockchain, it is essentially a dismantling of the traditional Bretton Woods-style infrastructure.

As long as Iran maintains its geographic monopoly over the strait, this derivative of financial functions will remain significant. Financial warfare that uses digital currencies as the medium is rewriting the rules of global trade.