As of September 3, 2026, Polymarket prices “Iran charges Hormuz fees by October 31?” at 13% YES with $431K traded. 1 tracked wallet holds a position here; the dominant side is NO.
Prediction markets put the probability at 17%: Iran charges Hormuz fees by October 31. Currently, markets see this as unlikely (17% YES). Central Command said the blockade of Iranian ports, which had been in effect from April to June, would restart late Tuesday in Iran.
The question of whether Iran charges Hormuz fees by October 31 has shifted from theoretical speculation to active diplomatic negotiation following the U.S. announcement on July 13, 2026 that it would restart a naval blockade of Iranian ports and impose a transit fee equal to 20 percent of cargo value on vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded on the same day, stating that President Trump is "absolutely right" about the strait's strategic importance, but rejected the proposed fee structure as "too much," asserting that Iran has "always been the Guardian of the Strait." The U.S. military conducted a third consecutive night of strikes on Iran that week, marking a return to open conflict after a blockade period that had run from April to June [NYT, Jul 13].
By late July, the diplomatic landscape had shifted toward multilateral mediation. On July 31, 2026, Reuters reported that Oman had presented Iran with a Gulf-backed plan to manage the strait, including provisions for collecting voluntary fees for transit—a framework that could effectively determine whether Iran charges Hormuz fees by October 31. While Tehran publicly rejected the Omani proposal, foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed that talks with Oman were continuing, signaling potential flexibility. Analysts at Sea-Intelligence noted the possibility that Iran might succeed in imposing a new governance regime for vessel traffic, including fee payments, as Middle East freight rates have already sailed past pandemic-era peaks following a box ship attack and renewed closure of the strait [The Loadstar, Jul 13].
The structural factor determining whether Iran charges Hormuz fees by October 31 lies in the competing toll frameworks now on the table: the U.S. security fee model versus the Iranian-Omani governance proposal. Hugh Daigle, a petroleum engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin, cautioned that no return to the pre-war status quo should be assumed, noting that Iran has recognized the strait's value as a bargaining chip and will be more willing to use it in the future. Oil prices rose immediately after Iran announced it would stop ships in Hormuz, underscoring the market sensitivity to any fee regime, whether imposed by Washington or Tehran. The 17 percent probability assigned to Iran successfully implementing fees by October 31 reflects the complexity of the Omani mediation track, which remains active despite public posturing, and the unresolved question of whether any single actor can enforce toll collection amid active U.S. military operations in the region [Reuters, Jul 31].
See which tracked wallets hold this market (entries, size, P&L), the models’ fair value and entry targets — and get an alert within a minute when they trade.
Unlock PRO — $29/mo7/7 models agree on NO, fair value 13c vs market 12c. Weak edge — consider waiting for stronger signal.
| Model | Says | Fair Value estimated fair price | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| MATH PIN Model | NO | 98c | — |
| MATH Compound Signal | NO | 72c | — |
| AI Claude Analysis | NO | 91c | 82% |
| AI DeepSeek Quant | NO | 92c | 72% |
| AI Grok Contrarian | NO | 78c | 61% |
| AI Gemini Flash | NO | 85c | 75% |
| AI Kimi Macro | NO | 92c | 78% |
7 of 7 models estimate NO fair value below market (72–98c vs 88c). Claude Analysis leads with 82% confidence.
Models estimate fair value of NO at 87c — market prices it at 88c. 1-point gap supports YES.
The single tracked wallet holds NO positions at 44c, signaling a confident bet against the event occurring by October 31. This entry level suggests the wallet views the YES probability as significantly overpriced at current levels, providing a clear directional signal. The lack of YES entries from smart money further validates the bearish outlook, with no indication of accumulation to support a price rally.
| Wallet | Category | Side | Amount | P&L | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0x162f..8d | MM | NO | $3.1K | +98% |
All tracked NO positions are profitable, with entries at 44c, while YES has no profitable entries, indicating strong bearish sentiment on the event. This profit concentration on NO suggests limited buying pressure for YES, keeping the price suppressed near 12c. The absence of YES entries implies a lack of conviction for the fee imposition, reinforcing resistance to upward price movement.
Polymarket prices YES at 13c with $431K in total volume. Our model estimates fair value at 13c. Model and market are aligned — no pricing discrepancy detected.
| Platform | YES Price | Volume |
|---|---|---|
| Polymarket | 13c | $431K |
| Our Model | 13c | — |