The personnel turmoil surrounding the new Federal Reserve Chair once again stirs the crypto market, and the uncertainty brought about by Trump's policy stance is reshaping market expectations for monetary policy. Hidden behind this is a key question: will the upcoming policy choices be a long-term boon for Bitcoin or cause short-term pressure?

From recent market reactions, Bitcoin prices show a clear correlation with changes in Federal Reserve personnel. Shifts in policy expectations directly impact dollar liquidity outlooks, thereby influencing the valuation logic of crypto assets. In simple terms, the selection of the Federal Reserve Chair not only determines the direction of interest rate policies but also influences market expectations for rate cuts in 2026.

Looking at the backgrounds of the two main candidates, the situation differs. Warsh has experience in the crypto industry, but the market has found that this does not necessarily mean support for loose monetary policy—macro policy orientation is often more critical than personal resumes. If he is ultimately appointed, short-term market sentiment may be under pressure, but if his crypto industry experience translates into a more rational regulatory attitude, it could help reduce policy uncertainty in the long run and benefit ecosystem development.

In contrast, Hassett's appointment might directly boost expectations of rate cuts. The market generally anticipates this could help Bitcoin reach key psychological levels like $100,000. However, it should be noted that expectations of liquidity easing are already partially priced into asset prices, which means the upside potential for benefits may not be as large as expected.

It is worth emphasizing that while Federal Reserve policies have a profound impact on short-term volatility, Bitcoin's long-term trend still depends on its own cyclical patterns. Recent events clearly demonstrate one point: as crypto assets gradually become mainstream investment allocations, their prices will increasingly be affected by changes in traditional financial power structures. The policy philosophies of key decision-makers often have more substantive influence than their specific industry preferences.