On May 6, 2026, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council at the White House, stepped forward to attempt to "calm" the markets: the question of Powell's tenure remains uncertain, the current administration "does not threaten the independence of the Federal Reserve," and at the same time, the White House is studying possible executive orders related to artificial intelligence and the business sector. On the surface, this was a standard clarifying statement, but for a market that is already highly tense around "Powell's term coming to an end and whether the Federal Reserve will become more politicized," these few words truly rewrite an entire set of subjective probability distributions regarding the independence of the Federal Reserve and the future path of interest rates—whether Powell will be reappointed, whether the Monetary Committee will lean more hawkish or dovish in the future, and to what extent political forces can interfere with the trade-off between inflation and employment, all must be re-evaluated.

In the language of the cryptocurrency market, this means that the premium for policy uncertainty is increasing. Institutional investors have already reached a basic consensus: the medium to long-term pricing of BTC and ETH is inextricably linked to expectations of U.S. real interest rates, dollar liquidity, and global risk appetite. When the outside world hears assurances of "no threat to independence" while being reminded that "Powell-related issues are still uncertain," combined with the potential disruption that possible AI and business executive orders could bring to the valuation sentiment of technological assets and "AI concept" tokens, the range of interest rate expectations widens, the weight of dollar return opportunities in investment portfolios increases, and the leverage of crypto funds and position structures become more cautious, necessitating a new round of adjustment in the pricing of mainstream assets like BTC/ETH in response to interest rates and dollar paths.

Powell in Limbo: Personnel Pressures on Interest Rates

When Hassett put "the issues related to Powell are still uncertain" on the table on May 6, this seemingly mild statement actually elevated a personnel arrangement originally viewed as "background settings" into a core variable affecting the shape of the interest rate curve. The market is accustomed to trading potential policy style differences in advance before changes in central bank leadership; once the question of "who will be in charge" becomes a mystery, interest rate futures and U.S. Treasury curves are not only pricing inflation and growth but also weighting votes for the rate hike/cut paths of different chair candidates. Historical experience is clear: when the uncertainty of the monetary policy path rises, interest rate volatility and term premiums tend to move up together, and longer duration assets need to pay a higher price to hedge against the risk of "not knowing who will control the interest rates or at what pace."

In this newly widened imaginative range, the market is silently running two probability trees: if the successor is more "hawkish," the endpoint of nominal interest rates and the time maintained at high levels are overall moved upwards, with the distribution of real interest rates skewed to the right, and while long-term rates may not rise linearly, concerns about "long-term tightening" will be reflected through higher term premiums; if the successor is more "dovish," the interest rate hike cycle is viewed as nearing its end, even anticipating a faster cut, with the central tendency of real interest rates pressured down, term premiums possibly retreating, but the tail risk of renewed inflation being amplified. Regardless of which branch takes the upper hand, during this period of personnel uncertainty, what is truly elevated is the uncertainty of the path itself: the market is daily recalibrating these two probability trees based on new political and public opinion signals, resulting in persistently high interest rate volatility.

For highly volatile assets like BTC and ETH, this "policy volatility premium driven by personnel changes" will directly reflect in valuation discounts. Institutional investors already peg their medium to long-term pricing to U.S. real interest rates, dollar liquidity, and global risk appetite; when the interest rate path becomes a thicker fog, cross-asset funds will tend to first lock in more certain dollar return opportunities while tightening leverage and reducing risk exposure to high beta assets like cryptocurrencies. The result is: on one hand, the market requires more substantial interest rate benefits (for example, a collective repricing of future easing) to drive BTC/ETH up by the same magnitude; on the other hand, any signal interpreted as "the new chair may be more hawkish" is more likely to trigger a magnified pullback in crypto, resulting in BTC/ETH’s pricing continuing to reflect the fluctuations in interest rate volatility and term premiums during this phase.

Verbal Endorsement of Independence: Easing for the Dollar and Treasuries

Just as speculation about “how hawkish or dovish the new chair will be” pushes the interest rate path to extremes, the verbal endorsement Hassett provided became the first line of defense for market sentiments. On May 6, he emphasized that the current U.S. administration does not threaten the independence of the Federal Reserve; this statement does not solve the uncertainty surrounding Powell's tenure, but at least in terms of direction, it hedges against prior concerns—whether the White House would directly use monetary policy as an administrative tool. For traders, this feels more like a "institutional signal test": the government's proactive expression of respect for independence means that even if personnel changes occur, the likelihood of openly commanding the Federal Reserve to loosen or tighten in a naked manner has been lowered a notch in the short term.

If this signal is seen as credible, then the increasing "institutional tail risk premium" that the market has seen will retract. The debate surrounding central bank independence fundamentally revolves around the pricing of two extreme paths—being forced into extreme loose monetary policy leading to high inflation or being forced into excessive tightening crushing growth. Once investors believe the weight of these two extreme scenarios decreases, the risk compensation added to dollar assets due to fears of political intervention will be reduced, and the term premium on U.S. Treasuries and the insurance pricing against severe policy errors will ease. In a phase where the federal government is viewed as respecting the independence of the Federal Reserve, Treasury bonds are more easily seen as "institutional safe assets," and this verbal endorsement is an attempt to pull market expectations back onto this track.

From the perspective of crypto assets, this easing reveals a dual narrative. On one hand, for Bitcoin, which some institutions consider a tool for "hedging against extreme system collapse," when the institutional sense of safety in the dollar and Treasuries is restored, the most extreme demand for hedging against a "fiat currency system out of control" will recede from an emotional peak, and the tail risk premium embedded in BTC pricing may converge temporarily, with risk-averse trades no longer urgently using on-chain assets as insurance. On the other hand, a statement of "no threat to independence" cannot erase the debate the market has just undergone; investors have been reminded that even without overt intervention, personnel arrangements, parochialism, and policy preferences will still reshape the monetary framework at more covert levels, and this structural questioning will not disappear because of a single press conference. The result is that, in the short to medium term, the premium on BTC/ETH for "extreme institutional risk" has been lowered, more tightly re-anchored to real interest rates and liquidity, while in the long term, the narrative as insurance against institutional uncertainty has not ended but has only had its volume temporarily reduced by the market.

Ambiguity in Policy Path: Repricing of Crypto Assets

Hassett, while acknowledging that Powell-related questions "are still uncertain," also emphasizes that the government has not threatened the independence of the Federal Reserve; this is not a stabilizing factor in traders' eyes, but a broader probability distribution map: the path for chair personnel is elongated, political intervention has been verbally pressed down but has not been institutionally locked in. The result is that the distributions of interest rates and inflation expectations are "flattened and widened"—the median may not change much, but the tail scenarios become thicker: from "more hawkish successors" to "more politically synchronized dovish combinations," all must be written into the scenario tree of interest rate futures and U.S. Treasury yield curves. The monetary policy path has shifted from a roughly clear midline to a gray area that needs constant boundary redrawing.

In this expectation structure, the pricing logic of cross-asset discount rates changes. Investors no longer focus solely on the dot plot of a single meeting but apply a higher uncertainty premium to the entire future policy cycle: funding costs are layered with risk compensation for "who will be the chair and whether independence is under threat" above nominal levels, and the longer the duration or the more uncertain the cash flows, the faster the discount rates lift. For BTC and ETH, viewed as high volatility, high duration risk assets by most institutions, this means their valuation anchor is recalibrated: on one hand, the medium to short term is more directly pinned to U.S. real interest rates and dollar liquidity conditions, and any minor re-evaluation of future interest rate paths must be transmitted to prices through higher discount rates; on the other hand, the long-term narrative of "institutional uncertainty insurance" has not disappeared but has been diluted by higher volatility and thicker tail risks, with funds willing to pay a premium for long-term stories decreasing.

The behavior of on-chain funds will also reshape accordingly. During a phase of rising uncertainty and a widened range of interest rates and inflation expectations, institutional and professional funds tend to first shorten durations: reducing high-leverage long-cycle exposures, shortening holding periods, and shifting more positions into short-duration cash-like instruments or structured products that earn dollar spreads. In the cryptocurrency market, this preference manifests as increased attention to on-chain dollar asset yield opportunities: more funds are willing to stay in dollar-denominated assets or yield-generating protocols, locking in visible dollar returns first, then deciding whether to re-allocate to high beta exposures like BTC and ETH based on the clarity of interest rates and policy paths. Moving forward, who increases allocation to on-chain dollar yields, and who extends the duration of BTC/ETH against the trend, will become key clues to observe how the market re-prices this round of "policy path ambiguity."

AI Executive Order Expectations: Discrepancy between Technology and Crypto

Another signal thrown by Hassett at the same event is that the White House is researching "possible executive orders related to artificial intelligence and the business sector." The lack of details gives the market more imaginative space: the conventional path of regulatory uncertainty in traditional asset pricing is first reflected in the valuation discounts and capital expenditure hesitations of named sectors, followed by profit and fundamental changes. For technology stocks and "AI concept" assets, this expectation is enough to suppress sentiment—even if liquidity itself has not been directly tightened, preemptively lowering valuations is a more common reaction.

The subtlety of this round of expectations lies in the fact that potential regulation directly targets large models and publicly-listed technology companies with clear legal entities and business scenarios, rather than the "AI concept" tokens spread across the chain. As a result, there may be performance discrepancies between traditional technology and crypto AI sectors: the former is facing rising policy risk premiums, regulatory costs, and compliance uncertainty; the latter more so perceives "technological regulation" versus "freedom of innovation" through public opinion and narrative, with price reactions often being more emotional and amplified. Traditional market investors, when facing increased policy risks in the tech sector, habitually lower valuation centers and delay or reduce investments in high-uncertainty projects, while a portion of funds that still chase high-volatility returns will actively seek other "high beta outlets."

If in such an environment, uncertainty about the Federal Reserve's path has not evolved into substantial tightening, and dollar liquidity has not shown a cliff-like contraction, a unique combination may emerge in trading: technology stock valuations being passively compressed under policy shadows, while the risk budgets within the system have not been proportionately reduced. The remaining risk appetite is likely to overflow to the crypto world along the "AI narrative" line—from high volatility AI concept coins to BTC and ETH, viewed as high beta representatives of the entire risk asset cycle. For traders, observing whether traditional AI leaders experience apparent valuation discounts as policy expectations rise, while on-chain AI narrative tokens and mainstream currencies see synchronized transactions and volatility amplifications, will be a critical clue in determining whether this round of "AI executive order expectations" evolves into cross-market style rotations.

From Discourse to Trading: What Signals the Crypto Market is Watching

The net effect of Hassett's round of comments is to elevate uncertainty premiums on both "where the money comes from and who manages the money": on one hand, Powell’s tenure is officially defined as "uncertain," creating more scenarios for future interest rate paths and styles; on the other hand, the White House’s verbal reaffirmation of no threat to the Federal Reserve’s independence somewhat softens the market's imaginative space for extreme political intervention. Combined with AI and business executive orders still in the research phase, the ambiguous interval of regulation and policy paths has widened, macroscopically reflecting the need for higher risk compensation across interest rates, the dollar, and valuations of growth assets. For crypto traders, the first layer to watch is whether interest rate futures and U.S. Treasury yield curves significantly reprice after this statement (for example, whether betting on future rate cuts converges or diverges), and the second layer is whether the dollar index aligns with the tech sector of U.S. stocks and high-yield bond spreads to confirm the marginal strengthening or retreat of global risk appetite.

Based on this, a simple scenario framework can be used to prepare for the relative performance of BTC/ETH: if subsequent signals point to "Powell's reappointment + the market believes that independence remains solid," interest rate futures and yield curves are likely to more readily converge towards a moderate path, with the dollar strength being constrained; historically, BTC/ETH typically enjoys liquidity easing expectations alongside growth stocks in narratives of "more dovish but controllable institutional risks"; if "more hawkish successors" emerge or the curve is repriced for longer high rates, combined with weakness in tech stocks and high-yield bonds, mainstream coins are likely to be initially viewed as high beta risk assets and sold off; if disagreements about independence heat up, it may trigger some recovery of funds logic for "institutional hedging," but volatility will significantly amplify; and under the combination of "more dovish successors + declining trust in independence," there may be expectations for aggressive easing at the interest rate end, pressure on the dollar, overall recovery of risk assets, but the shadow of political intervention may elevate long-term risk premiums, resulting in BTC/ETH being priced as both beneficiaries of liquidity and as insurance chips against institutional uncertainty. For crypto traders, how this round of personnel and discourse game ultimately materializes will be most intuitively reflected in the interest rate curve shapes, dollar strength or weakness, and the relative high beta performance of BTC/ETH—these three observable clues.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。