Recently, there have been numerous frictions between the Federal Reserve and the White House. Trump continues to exert pressure, and Federal Reserve officials have responded—this dispute is far deeper than the surface political mudslinging. The real contest revolves around central bank independence, which will directly influence the monetary policy direction over the next five years.

The data is clear: core inflation still stubbornly stays above the 3% threshold, and policy disagreements between the White House and the Fed are intensifying. What does this mean? Rate cuts may come later than market expectations and could be more cautious. Historical experience shows that whenever political forces intervene in monetary policy, market volatility often spikes by over 40%—this is not alarmist.

Currently, three phenomena are worth noting. First, the 2025 Fed Chair candidate has become a political bargaining chip, directly threatening the independence of the central bank. Second, political intervention is usually accompanied by sharp fluctuations in capital markets. Third, more and more funds are seeking alternatives—flowing into assets with transparent rules and higher decentralization.

From another perspective, in times of macroeconomic uncertainty, the market is reassessing what is worth holding long-term. Assets with high consensus and strong community support are gaining attention. This may be the key—when the reliability of traditional financial tools declines, truly decentralized consensus assets become a hedge.