Giannis Andreou

For years, US Federal Reserve interest rate cuts have been a key macro signal for Bitcoin traders. Lower rates typically meant cheaper borrowing, boosted risk appetite and sparked rallies in crypto. However, that classic link between Fed rate cuts and Bitcoin trading has weakened in recent months. Bitcoin now responds more to actual liquidity levels in the financial system than to expectations or incremental changes in borrowing costs.
This article clarifies why anticipated rate cuts have not pushed up Bitcoin recently. It explains why episodes of liquidity constraint have triggered synchronized sell-offs across crypto, stocks and even precious metals.
Rates vs. liquidity: The key difference
Interest rates represent the cost of money, while liquidity reflects the quantity and flow of money available in the system. Markets sometimes confuse the two, but they can diverge sharply.
The Fed might lower rates, yet liquidity could still contract if reserves are drained elsewhere. For instance, liquidity can tighten through quantitative tightening or the US Department of the Treasury’s actions. Liquidity can also rise without rate cuts through other inflows or policy shifts.
Bitcoin’s price action increasingly tracks this liquidity pulse more closely than incremental rate adjustments.
Why rate cuts no longer drive Bitcoin as strongly
Several factors have diminished the impact of rate cuts:
Heavy pre-pricing: Markets and futures often anticipate cuts well in advance, pricing them in long before they happen. By the time a cut occurs, asset prices may already reflect it.Context matters: Cuts driven by economic stress or financial instability can coincide with de-risking. In such environments, investors tend to reduce exposure to volatile assets even if rates are falling.Cuts do not guarantee liquidity: Ongoing balance sheet runoff, large Treasury issuance or reserve drains can keep the system constrained. Bitcoin, as a volatile asset, tends to react quickly to these pressures.
Bitcoin as a liquidity-sensitive, high-beta asset
Bitcoin’s buyers rely on leverage, available risk capital and overall market conditions. Liquidity influences these factors:
In environments with abundant liquidity, leverage flows freely, volatility is more tolerated, and capital shifts toward riskier assets.When liquidity is constrained, leverage unwinds, liquidations cascade, and risk appetite vanishes across markets.
This dynamic suggests Bitcoin behaves less like a policy rate trade and more like a real-time gauge of liquidity conditions. When cash becomes scarce, Bitcoin tends to fall in tandem with equities and commodities, regardless of the Fed funds rate.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
What lies behind liquidity
To understand how Bitcoin reacts in various situations, it helps to look beyond rate decisions and into the financial plumbing:
Fed balance sheet: Quantitative tightening (QT) shrinks the Fed’s holdings and pulls reserves from banks. While markets can handle early QT, it eventually constrains risk-taking. Signals about potential balance sheet expansion can at times influence markets more than small changes in policy rates.Treasury cash management: The US Treasury’s cash balance acts as a liquidity valve. When the Treasury rebuilds its cash balance, money moves out of the banking system. When it draws the balance down, liquidity is released.Money market tools: Facilities like the overnight reverse repo (ON RRP) absorb or release cash. Shrinking buffers make markets more reactive to small liquidity shifts, and Bitcoin registers those changes rapidly.
Why recent sell-offs felt macro, not crypto-specific
Lately, Bitcoin drawdowns have aligned with declines in equities and metals, pointing to broad liquidity stress rather than isolated crypto issues. This cross-asset synchronization underscores Bitcoin’s integration into the global liquidity framework.
Fed leadership and policy nuances: Shifts in expected Fed leadership, particularly views on balance sheet policy, add complexity. Skepticism toward aggressive expansion signals tighter liquidity ahead, which affects Bitcoin prices more intensely than small rate tweaks.Liquidity surprises pack a bigger punch: Liquidity shifts are less predictable and transparent, and markets are not as adept at anticipating them. They quickly affect leverage and positioning. Rate changes, however, are widely debated and modeled. Unexpected liquidity drains can catch traders off guard, with Bitcoin’s volatility magnifying the effect.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
How to think about Bitcoin’s macro sensitivity
Over long periods, interest rates shape valuations, discount rates and opportunity costs. In the current regime, however, liquidity sets the near-term boundaries for risk appetite. Bitcoin’s reaction becomes more volatile when liquidity shifts.
Key things to monitor include:
Central bank balance sheet signalsTreasury cash flows and Treasury General Account (TGA) levelsStress or easing signals in money markets.
Rate cut narratives can shape sentiment, but sustained buying depends on whether liquidity supports risk-taking.
The broader shift
Bitcoin was long seen as a hedge against currency debasement. Today, it is increasingly viewed as a real-time indicator of financial conditions. When liquidity expands, Bitcoin benefits; when liquidity tightens, Bitcoin tends to feel the pain early.
In recent periods, Bitcoin has responded more to liquidity conditions than to rate cut headlines. In the current phase of the Bitcoin cycle, many analysts are focusing less on rate direction and more on whether system liquidity is sufficient to support risk-taking.

$BTC

Verifying Satoshi Nakamoto: A matter of math, not media
From time to time, individuals claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator. Such announcements generate headlines, spark heated debates and trigger instant skepticism. Yet after years of assertions, lawsuits, leaked files and media interviews, no claim has been backed by definitive proof.
The reason is simple. Proving someone is Satoshi is not a matter of storytelling, credentials or courtroom victories. It is a cryptographic problem governed by unforgiving rules.
Nakamoto built Bitcoin to function as a peer-to-peer (P2P) cryptocurrency without requiring trust in people. It is widely assumed that Satoshi Nakamoto is an adopted name rather than a real one. As a result, anyone who claims to be Satoshi, or is presented as such, must prove that identity. That proof would likely involve identity documents, historical communication records and, most critically, control of a private key associated with one of Bitcoin’s earliest addresses.
Over the years, several individuals have been speculated to be Satoshi Nakamoto, but only a few have publicly claimed to be the creator of Bitcoin.
The most prominent claimant is Craig Steven Wright, who repeatedly asserted that he was Satoshi. That claim collapsed after a UK High Court ruling explicitly determined he was not Satoshi Nakamoto and sharply criticized the credibility of his evidence.
Dorian S. Nakamoto was identified by Newsweek in 2014 as Satoshi Nakamoto, but he immediately denied any connection to Bitcoin’s creator. Early Bitcoin pioneer Hal Finney also rejected speculation that he was Satoshi Nakamoto before his passing. Nick Szabo has likewise been speculated to be Satoshi over the years and has consistently denied the claim.
Press enter or click to view the image in full size

What constitutes genuine proof of ownership in Bitcoin
In cryptographic systems like Bitcoin, identity is bound to private key ownership. Demonstrating control requires signing a message with that key, a process that anyone can verify publicly.
This distinction is clear:
Evidence can be debated, interpreted or challenged.Cryptographic verification is binary; it either checks out or it does not.
Bitcoin’s verification model does not rely on authority, credentials or expert consensus. It depends on mathematics, not people, institutions or opinion.
The gold standard: Signing with early keys
The most conclusive proof of being Satoshi would be a public message signed using a private key from one of Bitcoin’s earliest blocks, particularly those associated with Satoshi’s known mining activity in 2009.
Such a signature would be:
Verifiable by anyone using standard toolsImpossible to forge without the actual private keyFree from dependence on courts, media or trusted third parties.
The tools required for such proof are simple, accessible and decisive, yet no one has ever provided it.
Moving early coins: Even more powerful, but improbable
An even stronger demonstration would be transferring Bitcoin from an untouched Satoshi-era wallet. That single onchain action would dispel nearly all doubt.

Yet it carries massive downsides:
Instant worldwide scrutinySevere personal security threatsPotential tax, legal, and regulatory falloutMarket disruption from anticipated dumps.
The most ironclad proof is also the most disruptive. It makes inaction a rational choice, even for the true creator.
Why documents, emails, and code don’t settle the ownership
While emails, draft papers, forum posts, and code contributions can support a claim, they do not constitute definitive evidence. Such materials can be forged, edited, selectively leaked,d or misinterpreted.
Code authorship does not prove key control. In Bitcoin, keys define identity, and everything else is secondary. Analysis of emails, draft papers, and forum posts may offer intriguing correlations between an individual and Bitcoin, but it lacks certainty. The samples are limited, and styles can overlap or be mimicked.
In social settings or conventional legal disputes, identity can be supported by personal testimony or documentation. However, such evidence is irrelevant within Bitcoin’s decentralized model.
Human memory is fallible, and incentives can be misaligned. Bitcoin was designed specifically to avoid reliance on such factors. Cryptographic proof removes any human role from the verification process.
Why partial proof is not proof
Some claimants offer evidence behind closed doors. However, material shown only to select individuals, or signatures produced using later Bitcoin keys, does not meet the required standard.
To convince the world, proof must be:
Public: Visible to anyoneReproducible: Independently verifiableDirect: Tied to Satoshi-era keys.
Anything less leaves room for doubt, which is unacceptable to the Bitcoin community.
For Bitcoin to function, its creator does not need to be known or visible. On the contrary, its decentralization narrative is strengthened by the creator’s absence. There is no founder to defer to, no authority to appeal to, and no identity to attack or defend.
While most organizations or projects rely on founders or management teams, Bitcoin functions precisely because identity is irrelevant.