HNIW30

Jika Kevin Warsh diangkat sebagai Ketua Fed (dengan kemungkinan tinggi berdasarkan berita terbaru hingga 30/01/2026), dampaknya terhadap pasar crypto akan kompleks, tetapi sebagian besar negatif dalam jangka pendek karena pandangan hawkish-nya. Berikut adalah analisis rinci berdasarkan pandangan kebijakan dan reaksi pasar historis:1. Pandangan kebijakan moneter Warsh – Faktor utama yang memengaruhi cryptoWarsh adalah kandidat hawkish yang khas: Dia dengan tegas menentang QE (pelonggaran kuantitatif), mendukung pengurangan cepat neraca Fed dan memprioritaskan kontrol inflasi yang lebih ketat untuk mendukung pertumbuhan jangka pendek.

Hiện tại (30/01/2026), nhiệm kỳ Chủ tịch Fed của Jerome Powell sẽ kết thúc vào tháng 5/2026. Tổng thống Donald Trump đã thu hẹp danh sách ứng cử viên xuống còn 4 người và dự kiến công bố chính thức vào sáng mai (31/01/2026). Theo các nguồn tin mới nhất từ Reuters, WSJ, Bloomberg và prediction markets, 4 ứng cử viên tiềm năng bao gồm:

Dưới đây là phân tích chi tiết từng người, dựa trên nền tảng, quan điểm chính sách tiền tệ, ưu nhược điểm và khả năng được chọn (dựa trên thông tin công khai và đánh giá thị trường đến thời điểm hiện tại):

1. Kevin Warsh (Ứng cử viên dẫn đầu hiện tại)

Nền tảng: Cựu Thống đốc Fed (2006-2011), từng làm việc tại Morgan Stanley, hiện là học giả tại Hoover Institution và thành viên hội đồng quản trị UPS.Quan điểm chính sách: Hawkish (thiên về kiểm soát lạm phát nghiêm ngặt), phê phán mạnh mẽ QE (nới lỏng định lượng), ủng hộ giảm bảng cân đối kế toán của Fed để hạ lãi suất ngắn hạn thay vì cắt giảm trực tiếp. Ông ủng hộ lãi suất thấp hơn nhưng qua cách tiếp cận thận trọng.Ưu điểm: Kinh nghiệm sâu tại Fed, hiểu rõ cơ chế nội bộ, được đánh giá cao về độc lập.Nhược điểm: Quan điểm hawkish có thể khiến thị trường lo ngại Fed sẽ ít cắt giảm lãi suất hơn mong đợi.Khả năng được chọn: Cao nhất hiện tại, với odds khoảng 85-87% trên các prediction markets.
2. Christopher Waller

Nền tảng: Thống đốc Fed hiện tại (do Trump bổ nhiệm nhiệm kỳ đầu), từng là nghiên cứu viên tại Fed St. Louis.
Quan điểm chính sách: Dovish hơn (thiên về hỗ trợ tăng trưởng), thường ủng hộ cắt giảm lãi suất, dự báo chính xác về lạm phát và việc làm gần đây. Ông nhấn mạnh tính độc lập của Fed.Ưu điểm: Đang tại vị nên dễ được Thượng viện xác nhận, được nhiều CEO lớn ủng hộ (hơn 80% trong một số khảo sát), ít gây tranh cãi chính trị.Nhược điểm: Ít trung thành chính trị với Trump hơn các ứng cử viên khác, có thể bị coi là "quá giống Powell".Khả năng được chọn: Vẫn cao, được xem là lựa chọn an toàn và kỹ thuật.
3. Kevin Hassett

Nền tảng: Cố vấn kinh tế hàng đầu của Trump, Giám đốc Hội đồng Kinh tế Quốc gia (NEC), từng là Chủ tịch Hội đồng Cố vấn Kinh tế (CEA) nhiệm kỳ đầu của Trump.Quan điểm chính sách: Trung thành với agenda kinh tế của Trump, ủng hộ lãi suất thấp để hỗ trợ tăng trưởng và giảm chi phí nợ công.Ưu điểm: Rất trung thành với Trump, hiểu rõ ưu tiên chính trị của chính quyền.Nhược điểm: Ít kinh nghiệm trực tiếp tại Fed, Trump từng do dự vì không muốn mất ông ở Nhà Trắng; có thể gặp khó khăn về xác nhận độc lập.Khả năng được chọn: Đã giảm mạnh gần đây, nhiều nguồn cho rằng cơ hội thấp.
4. Rick Rieder

Nền tảng: CIO mảng thu nhập cố định tại BlackRock, quản lý hơn 2.7 nghìn tỷ USD tài sản.Quan điểm chính sách: Chuyên gia thị trường trái phiếu, được đánh giá linh hoạt, có thể ủng hộ cắt giảm lãi suất để hỗ trợ tăng trưởng.Ưu điểm: Được Wall Street tôn trọng cao, kinh nghiệm thực tế sâu về thị trường tài chính.Nhược điểm: Từng đóng góp chính trị cho đối thủ của Trump (như Nikki Haley), có thể bị Trump loại vì lý do chính trị.Khả năng được chọn: Từng dẫn đầu nhưng đã giảm mạnh do vấn đề đóng góp chính trị.
Tóm lại, Kevin Warsh hiện là ứng cử viên sáng giá nhất, theo các báo cáo mới nhất. Việc bổ nhiệm cuối cùng sẽ cần Thượng viện xác nhận, và bất kỳ ai cũng sẽ đối mặt với áp lực giữ độc lập Fed trong bối cảnh Trump muốn lãi suất thấp hơn. Chúng ta sẽ biết kết quả chính thức sớm thôi – tình hình có thể thay đổi nhanh chóng!
#WhoIsNextFedChair #MarketCorrection #PreciousMetalsTurbulence #BTC #GOLD

Chủ tịch SEC và Ủy ban thương mại tương lai hàng hóa (CFTC) đưa ra những tuyên bố tích cực về thị trường tiền điện tử!
Một bước tiến mới đang được thực hiện trong cách tiếp cận pháp lý đối với tiền điện tử dưới thời Tổng thống Mỹ Donald Trump. Sau khi Đạo luật Minh bạch (Clarity Act) bất ngờ bị đình chỉ tại Thượng viện, các cơ quan quản lý của Mỹ đang chuẩn bị ban hành các quy định trong phạm vi thẩm quyền hiện có để hỗ trợ sự phát triển của lĩnh vực tiền điện tử.
Trong một cuộc phỏng vấn chung với tờ The Wall Street Journal, Chủ tịch Ủy ban Chứng khoán và Giao dịch Hoa Kỳ (SEC) Paul Atkins và Chủ tịch Ủy ban giao dịch hàng hóa tương lai (Ủy ban thương mại tương lai hàng hóa (CFTC)) Michael Selig tuyên bố sẵn sàng hợp tác trong việc điều chỉnh tiền điện tử. Hai cơ quan dự kiến ​​sẽ ký một bản ghi nhớ (MoU) để làm rõ các lĩnh vực giám sát trong thị trường tiền điện tử.
Ông Atkins tuyên bố rằng việc tuân thủ quy định dài hạn được ưu tiên, đồng thời nói thêm: “Tôi hy vọng dự luật sẽ được thông qua trong năm nay, nhưng chúng ta cũng có thể tiếp tục với các quyền hạn hiện có.” Các cơ quan quản lý cho biết các quy định được ban hành sẽ phù hợp với luật pháp trong tương lai.
Việc trì hoãn Đạo luật Minh bạch đã làm gia tăng sự bất ổn trong lĩnh vực tiền điện tử và ngân hàng. Dự luật, dự kiến ​​được xem xét bởi một ủy ban Thượng viện, đã bị hoãn lại sau khi Coinbase, sàn giao dịch crypto lớn nhất tại Mỹ, rút ​​lại sự ủng hộ do tranh chấp với các ngân hàng về phần thưởng stablecoin. Sự phản đối của Giám đốc điều hành Coinbase, Brian Armstrong, đã dẫn đến việc dự luật bị tạm hoãn trong thời gian Short .
Theo phương pháp tiếp cận mới, SEC dự định tập trung vào Chứng khóa được token hóa), trong khi Ủy ban thương mại tương lai hàng hóa (CFTC) sẽ giám sát các tài sản kỹ thuật số và các tài sản tiền điện tử giống như hàng hóa. Ông Selig tuyên bố: “Chúng ta cần thiết lập một phân loại rõ ràng và tuân thủ phạm vi trách nhiệm của mình về việc thực thi pháp luật”, trong khi ông Atkins nói thêm: “Mục tiêu của chúng tôi là đảm bảo không có tài sản nào bị bỏ rơi”.
Cách tiếp cận này khác với lập trường cứng rắn được áp dụng dưới thời chính quyền Biden. Cựu Chủ tịch SEC Gary Gensler chủ yếu điều tiết lĩnh vực tiền điện tử thông qua các biện pháp trừng phạt. Các nhà lãnh đạo mới cũng bày tỏ quan điểm rằng áp lực gia tăng sau sự sụp đổ của FTX năm 2022 đã khiến một số công ty rời khỏi Mỹ.
Ngược lại, Atkins và Selig lại áp dụng cách tiếp cận “thân thiện với đổi mới” hơn. Atkins cho rằng có thể cấp “miễn trừ đổi mới” cho lĩnh vực này để cho phép các token và công nghệ mới được đưa ra thị trường nhanh hơn. Ông nhận xét: “Mọi người muốn sự rõ ràng; sự không chắc chắn là kẻ thù lớn nhất của đổi mới.”
*Đây không phải là lời khuyên đầu tư.
#BTC #PAXGUSDT #XAU #XAG #Cryto

As the crypto market matures, attention is slowly shifting away from purely speculative chains toward blockchains that can support real consumer-facing applications. Vanar Chain fits well into this transition. Instead of competing loudly on short-term metrics, @Vanarchain is positioning itself around performance, stability, and practical usability for digital products that require smooth user experiences.
What makes this approach relevant is the growing demand for blockchains that can operate in the background without forcing users to interact directly with complex Web3 mechanics. Gaming, immersive digital environments, and interactive platforms all require infrastructure that feels reliable and seamless. Vanar Chain’s focus reflects an understanding that mainstream adoption depends on hiding complexity rather than amplifying it.
In this context, $VANRY becomes more than just a speculative asset. Its role is increasingly tied to network participation and ecosystem activity as usage expands. Rather than chasing hype cycles, Vanar Chain appears to be aligning itself with long-term consumer trends, which is often where sustainable blockchain value is ultimately created. #vanar

Imagine this scenario: It's October 2028, and Vance and Mark Cuban are neck and neck in the presidential election. Vance's support in the prediction market suddenly surges. CNN, having partnered with Kalshi, provides 24/7 coverage of the prediction market's prices.
Meanwhile, no one knows why prices initially surged. Democrats insist the market was "manipulated." They point to a large number of suspicious trades that drove the market in favor of Vance without any new polls or other apparent reason.
The New York Times also published a report claiming that traders backed by Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund placed large bets in the election market to get CNN to report favorably on Vance. Republicans, however, argued that the price was justified, pointing out no evidence that the price spike would affect the election results, and accused Democrats of trying to suppress free speech and censor information about the election. The truth remains unclear.
This article will explain why such a scenario is highly likely to occur in the coming years—although successful manipulation of prediction markets is rare, and there is little evidence that it influences voter behavior.
Attempts to manipulate these markets are inevitable, and when manipulation occurs, the political implications can far outweigh any direct impact on election results. In an environment where any anomaly is readily interpreted as a conspiracy, even a brief distortion can trigger accusations of foreign interference, corruption, or elite collusion. Panic, blame, and a loss of trust can overshadow the actual impact of the initial action.
However, abandoning prediction markets would be a mistake. As traditional polling becomes increasingly vulnerable in an AI-saturated environment—with extremely low response rates and pollsters struggling to distinguish AI responses from real human respondents—prediction markets offer a useful complementary signal, aggregating fragmented information with genuine financial incentives.
The challenge lies in governance: building a system that both preserves the value of prediction market information and reduces its misuse. This may mean ensuring broadcasters focus on reporting on more volatile and less manipulable markets, encouraging platforms to monitor for signs of coordinated manipulation, and shifting the way market fluctuations are interpreted with humility rather than panic. If this can be achieved, prediction markets can evolve into a more robust and transparent component of the political information ecosystem: one that helps the public understand elections, rather than a vehicle for distrust.
Learn from history: Be wary of attempts to manipulate the market.
"Now everyone is watching the betting market. Its fluctuations are being watched with fervent interest by the general electorate, who, unable to understand the direction of public sentiment themselves, can only blindly rely on the opinions of those who wager hundreds of thousands of dollars in every election." — The Washington Post, November 5, 1905.
In the 1916 presidential election, Charles Evans Hughes led Woodrow Wilson in the New York betting market. It's noteworthy that the betting market was frequently covered by the news media in American politics at that time. Because of this coverage, the shadow of market manipulation lingered. In 1916, Democrats, not wanting to be seen as lagging behind, claimed the betting market was "rigged," and the media reported on this

.

The potential threat of election manipulation has never disappeared. On the morning of October 23, 2012, during the Barack Obama-Mitt Romney campaign, a trader placed a large order to buy Romney shares on InTrade, causing the price to surge by about 8 points, from just under 41 cents to nearly 49 cents—a price that, if believed, suggested a near tie. However, the price quickly retreated, and the media paid little attention. The identity of the alleged manipulator was never confirmed.

However, sometimes you'll see people openly explaining their logic for attempting to manipulate the market. A 2004 study documented a case of deliberate market manipulation during the 1999 Berlin state election. The author cited a real email from the local party headquarters urging members to bet on market predictions:
"The Daily Mirror (one of Germany's largest newspapers) publishes a daily political stock market (PSM), and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) is currently trading at 4.23%. You can view the PSM online at http://berlin.wahlstreet.de. Many citizens don't see the PSM as a game, but rather as the result of opinion polls. Therefore, it's important that the FDP's price rises in the final days. Like any exchange, price levels depend on demand. Participate in the PSM and buy FDP contracts. Ultimately, we all firmly believe in our party's success."
These concerns also emerged in 2024. On the eve of the election, The Wall Street Journal published an article questioning whether Trump's lead on Polymarket (which seemed to far exceed his poll numbers) was the result of improper influence: "Large bets on Trump are not necessarily malicious. Some observers believe it may simply be the work of a big gambler who firmly believes Trump will win and wants to make a fortune. However, others believe these bets are an influence campaign designed to generate buzz for the former president on social media."
The 2024 review was particularly intriguing because it raised concerns about foreign influence. The results indicated that the bets driving up Polymarket prices originated from a French investor—though there was little reason to believe it was manipulation, despite some speculation. In fact, this investor commissioned private polls and appeared focused on making money rather than manipulating the market.
This history reveals two themes. First, cyberattacks are common and their future occurrence is foreseeable. Second, even if an attack fails, some people can still use it to incite fear.
How significant are the impacts of these attacks?
Whether these measures will influence voter behavior depends on two factors: whether the manipulation can actually affect market prices, and whether changes in market prices will affect voter behavior.
Let’s first explore why manipulating the market (if you can) could help you achieve your political goals: because it’s not as obvious as people think.
Here are two ways to predict how the market might influence election results.

herd mentality
The herd mentality refers to the tendency of voters to support candidates who appear likely to win, whether out of herd mentality, the satisfaction of supporting the winner, or the belief that market odds reflect the candidate's quality.
If popularity helps a candidate gain more support, then broadcasting market prediction prices in the news creates an incentive to inflate those prices. Manipulators might try to boost the odds of their preferred candidate, hoping to trigger a feedback loop: market prices rise → voters perceive the momentum → voters shift their support → prices rise again.
In Vance Cuban's case, the manipulator's bet was that making Vance appear stronger would actually help him win.
complacency effect
On the other hand, if voters' preferred candidate is far ahead, they may choose not to vote. But if the election is close, or their preferred candidate seems to be losing, they may be more motivated to vote. In this situation, widely circulated market predictions create market pressure, keeping the odds close to 50/50. Once the market begins to favor a particular candidate, traders know that supporters of that candidate are losing enthusiasm, thus driving down prices.
This also facilitates market manipulation. A leading candidate, fearing overly optimistic supporters, might quietly buy shares of their opponent to tighten the market and suggest a more intense competition. Conversely, supporters of a lagging candidate might further depress their stock price to induce supporters in the opposing camp to believe victory is assured and abstain from voting. In this scenario, the market becomes a paradoxical prophecy: signals intended to reflect expectations instead serve to overturn them.
Despite the considerable controversy, some argue that Brexit is an example of this phenomenon. As a report from the London School of Economics points out: "It is well known that polls influence voter turnout and voting behavior, especially when one side seems to have a clear advantage. It appears that more people who support remaining in the EU chose the easier option of not voting, possibly because they believed that remaining would prevail."
Voters don't care too much about how intense the election is.
The problem is that even if herd mentality or complacency exists, existing evidence suggests its impact is usually small. US elections are relatively stable—driven primarily by partisan positions and fundamental factors such as the economy—so if voters react strongly to claims about who is leading, the election results will appear more chaotic. Moreover, when researchers attempt to directly alter people's perceptions of the intensity or crucial nature of an election, the behavioral effects are consistently limited.
An example of the theory that "the closer the election, the higher the voter turnout" is Enos and Fowler's study of a Massachusetts state legislature election that actually ended in a tie. In the re-election, they randomly informed some voters that the previous election in their district had ended in a narrow defeat by only one vote. Even with this extreme approach, the impact on voter turnout was negligible.
Similarly, Gerber et al. presented voters with different polling results in large-scale field experiments. People updated their perceptions of the intensity of the electoral competition, but voter turnout remained almost unchanged. A study on the Swiss referendum found that the effect was slightly larger, but still very limited: in this case, widely followed close polls appeared to slightly increase voter turnout, but only by a few percentage points.
It's possible that at times, signals of a close election might indeed prompt some voters to change their minds, but this effect is likely to be minimal. This doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about election fraud, but rather that we should focus on the subtle influences in a close election, rather than the distorting factors that could turn a close contest into a one-sided affair.
Market manipulation is both difficult and expensive.
This leads to the second question: Just how difficult is it to manipulate and predict market prices?
Rhode and Strumpf's study of the Iowa electronic market during the 2000 election found that manipulation attempts are costly and unsustainable. In a typical case, a trader repeatedly placed huge buy orders in the market, attempting to push prices up in favor of his preferred candidate. Each push briefly altered the odds, but other traders quickly used arbitrage to eliminate the distortion, pulling prices back to normal levels. The manipulator invested heavily but suffered heavy losses, while the market demonstrated strong mean reversion and resilience.

This is crucial in the hypothetical case of Vance and Cuban. Manipulating the presidential election market in October requires a large amount of capital, and there are many traders waiting to sell after the price surge. This small fluctuation might last until it's broadcast on CNN, but by the time CNN anchor Anderson Cooper starts talking about it, the price may have already fallen back to its initial level.
But the situation is different when market liquidity is insufficient. Researchers have demonstrated that long-term prices can be manipulated in a low-liquidity environment: no one can prevent such manipulation.
Response suggestions
There may be evidence that manipulating major election markets is unlikely to have a significant impact, but that doesn't mean we can do nothing. In a new world where prediction markets are converging with social media and cable news, the impact of price manipulation may be greater than ever before. Even if the impact of price manipulation is small, such concerns could affect shared perceptions of the fairness of the political system. How should we address this issue?
For broadcasting organizations:
Implement a liquidity floor. CNN and other news organizations should focus on actively traded markets when reporting on market price predictions for elections and other political events, as these markets are more likely to reflect accurate expectations and are more costly to manipulate; they should not report on prices in illiquid markets, as these markets are less accurate and less costly to manipulate.
Incorporate other election prediction signals. News organizations should also closely monitor opinion polls and other election prediction indicators. While these indicators may have other flaws, they are less likely to be manipulated strategically. If a significant discrepancy is found between market prices and other signals, news organizations should look for evidence of manipulation.
For predicting markets:
Establish monitoring capabilities. Build systems and personnel capable of detecting deceptive trading, fraudulent transactions, sudden spikes in one-sided trading volume, and coordinated account activity. Companies like Kalshi and Polymarket may already possess some of these capabilities, but they could invest more resources if they wish to be perceived as responsible platforms.
When sharp price fluctuations occur without a clear cause, consider intervention measures. This includes setting up simple circuit breakers in illiquid markets to deal with sudden price changes, and suspending trading and then conducting a call auction to reset prices when price movements appear abnormal.
When reporting price indicators, consideration should be given to how to improve their resistance to manipulation. For prices displayed on television, time-weighted or volume-weighted prices should be used.
Continuously improve trading transparency. Transparency is crucial: publish indicators of liquidity, concentration, and unusual trading patterns (without revealing personal identities) so that journalists and the public can understand whether price fluctuations reflect genuine information or order book noise. Large markets like Kalshi and Polymarket already display order books, but more detailed indicators and dashboards that are easy for the public to understand would be extremely valuable.
For policymakers:
Combating market manipulation. The first step is to clearly define that any attempt to manipulate election prediction market prices (to influence public opinion or media reports) falls under the jurisdiction of existing anti-manipulation regulations. This allows regulators to act quickly when unexplained large price fluctuations occur on the eve of an election.
Regulating interference in the market by domestic and foreign political forces. Because the election market is highly susceptible to foreign influence and campaign finance issues, policymakers should consider two safeguards:
(1) Monitoring foreign manipulation by tracking the nationality of traders is made possible by the existing “KYC” law in the United States, which is crucial to the operation of prediction markets.
(2) Establish disclosure rules or prohibitions for campaign activities, political action committees (PACs), and senior political staff. If the expenditures for price manipulation are undeclared political expenditures, the regulatory body should treat them as political expenditures.
in conclusion
Prediction markets can make elections clearer, not more chaotic, but only if they are established responsibly. CNN's collaboration with Kalshi foreshadows a future where market signals, along with polls, models, and reporting, will become part of the political information landscape. This presents a genuine opportunity: in a world saturated with AI, there is a need for tools capable of uncovering fragmented information without distortion. However, this prospect hinges on good governance, including liquidity standards, regulation, transparency, and a more prudent interpretation of market dynamics. If these aspects are handled properly, prediction markets can improve public understanding of elections and support a healthier democratic ecosystem in the age of algorithms.

I’ve been following @Plasma for a while now, not because it’s loud on social media, but because it keeps showing up in conversations around execution and infrastructure. In a market where most projects are busy selling narratives, Plasma feels more like a system that’s being built piece by piece.

What I find interesting is that Plasma doesn’t seem to chase attention. Instead, it focuses on how value actually moves on-chain and how networks behave when activity starts to scale. That’s not something you notice immediately, but over time it becomes obvious when you compare it with chains that struggle under real usage.

From my perspective, Plasma is approaching blockchain design with a more practical mindset. Things like performance consistency, reliability, and long-term usability matter a lot more than short-term hype. Those choices usually don’t look exciting at first, but they’re often what keeps an ecosystem alive when market conditions change.

The token side is also worth mentioning. $XPL isn’t positioned as just another speculative asset. It plays a functional role within the network, connecting usage with incentives. That kind of structure tends to reward real participation instead of empty volume.

Plasma may not be the noisiest project right now, but that’s often how serious infrastructure grows. Quiet progress, steady development, and a clear focus on fundamentals usually speak louder over time.
#plasma #Plasma

Yang terhormat,
Hari ini, saya ingin berbagi dengan Anda tentang fenomena menarik yang terjadi di pasar keuangan global: ketika Bitcoin (BTC) mengalami penurunan harga yang tajam, emas dan perak – dua logam mulia tradisional – juga sedang melakukan penyesuaian penurunan secara bersamaan. Ini bukan hanya pengamatan subjektif tetapi telah dibuktikan dengan jelas melalui data nyata dalam beberapa minggu terakhir bulan 1/2026. Mari kita lihat angka spesifik. Hingga tanggal 29/01/2026:

Kabar tentang pengembangan platform media sosial oleh OpenAI dan pertimbangan integrasi teknologi pemindaian iris dari Worldcoin telah mengguncang pasar crypto, mendorong harga $WLD naik sekitar 16% hanya dalam sehari pada 28/01/2026. Namun, setelah verifikasi yang cermat, gambaran nyata menunjukkan bahwa ini masih merupakan tahap penelitian awal, kurang konfirmasi resmi dan tidak ada bukti baru tentang aliran dana institusi. Pasar saat ini sepenuhnya dipengaruhi oleh ekspektasi dan narasi, disertai dengan risiko kekecewaan yang tinggi.

Dalam 24 jam terakhir, $BULLA – sebuah memecoin/tokem kecil dengan kapitalisasi pasar hanya sekitar 14 juta USD – telah mengguncang ketika harga meningkat lebih dari 100% di pasar kontrak berjangka USDT Binance. Secara khusus, dalam waktu kurang dari 1 jam (3600 detik), harga telah melonjak hingga 59,5%. Volume perdagangan terbuka (Open Interest – OI) juga melonjak mencapai puncak 11 juta USD, menyumbang hingga 65,9% dari kapitalisasi pasar – rasio yang sangat tinggi, menunjukkan tingkat leverage yang sangat besar yang sedang digunakan. Penyebab utama dari lonjakan yang kuat ini

Semalam saya duduk menonton siaran langsung pidato Bapak Powell. Sebenarnya, tidak ada informasi yang bersifat negatif mengejutkan bagi pasar. Nada suaranya tetap cukup netral, tidak lebih hawkish dibandingkan dengan apa yang diharapkan pasar sebelumnya. Dengan kata lain, Fed tidak "menambah bahan bakar ke api" seperti yang dikhawatirkan banyak orang.
Penurunan $BTC yang ringan setelah itu, menurut saya, tidak berasal dari faktor makroekonomi, tetapi kemungkinan besar berasal dari efek jangka pendek aliran dana. Terutama dalam konteks emas yang baru saja mencapai ATH baru, sebagian modal cenderung berpindah sementara ke aset defensif. Ini adalah skenario yang telah terulang berkali-kali di masa lalu, bukan sinyal pembalikan tren BTC.