The policy direction changes rapidly, and the recent selection battle for the Fed chair can be described as the annual drama. To be honest, it's more exciting than any financial news—because who sits in this chair directly determines the flow of global capital in the coming years.

According to the latest market betting data, the situation has become quite clear: Hassett's support rate has soared to 56%, far ahead of his opponents. Walsh's support rate is only 22%, while Waller has been left behind at 12%. What does this number reflect? Simply put, the market is voting — who aligns more with the current power structure's appetite.

**Two completely different paths**

Let's first look at "cooperative faction" Hassett. This guy's style can be summed up in one word—listen. Does the economy need stimulus? He would undoubtedly say yes. Does Trump want a low-interest-rate environment to stimulate growth? He has long been ready to release the floodgates. If Hassett takes office, the market may be completely ignited in the short term by the expectation of "ample liquidity." Funds will flow everywhere in search of high-yield opportunities. As a high-risk, high-return investment, cryptocurrency assets will naturally attract a wave of hot money. But there is a hidden danger here: if the floodgates are opened too much, the inflation bomb, which could be ignited at any time, could bring significant shocks to the entire market, and no one can say for sure how big those shocks will be.

Looking at "pragmatist" Waller. He is an old fox on Wall Street, having witnessed countless financial crises. His viewpoint has always been: interest rate cuts are fine, but they must be accompanied by liquidity tightening. In other words, giving with one hand and taking with the other. This policy combination appears balanced, but the market may experience a painful "weaning period." Those high-valued assets propped up by ultra-low interest rates and ample liquidity will be the first to face adjustment pressures.

Essentially, this selection is asking a core question: Can the power baton of the White House command the Fed at will? Historically, the Fed has claimed to be "independent," but what is the actual balance of power? This personnel change will provide the answer.

**What does it mean for the crypto market?**

What would happen if Hassert wins? The Fed's policy stance would tilt towards easing, increasing the pressure for the dollar to depreciate. In this environment, global investors would accelerate their search for alternative assets that provide safety and appreciation. Although the cryptocurrency market is highly volatile, its "emerging" and "high-growth" attributes become an advantage at such times. Initially, we would see a significant influx of funds, and mainstream cryptocurrencies like BTC, ETH, and BNB may experience a surge. However, it is important to note that the quality of this surge depends on the quality of the "liquidity"—if it is driven by rational risk investments, the market will be relatively stable; if it is merely driven by speculative trading, the subsequent volatility will be particularly severe.

What if Walsh or other hawkish candidates ultimately win? In the short term, the market may experience shocks from unmet expectations. Tightening expectations will undermine the appeal of risk assets, with crypto assets facing selling pressure first and foremost. However, in the medium term, if this policy mix can effectively control inflation and establish a more rational pricing mechanism for the market, it may actually be more beneficial for the healthy development of crypto assets in the long run.

**How to respond?**

Regardless of the outcome, effective risk management is key. Pay attention to the political developments in Washington, track the Fed's decisions, and monitor the dollar index and global liquidity conditions. These macro factors have become essential lessons in cryptocurrency investment - it is no longer just about technical analysis; the weight of policy considerations is increasingly significant.

In terms of position management, consider staggered allocations. Don’t bet on a single outcome, but rather prepare plans in advance based on different policy scenarios. In this wave of policy turbulence, being prudent is often more valuable than being aggressive.