A recent old news story from a few days ago has been brought back into the spotlight. Behind what seems like a routine clarification statement, there are hidden clues about the power struggle between traditional finance and the establishment.

Here's what happened: Trump publicly stated that he never sent an invitation to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to become Federal Reserve Chair. As a result, JPMorgan Chase quickly came out to confirm—yes, indeed, it didn't happen.

It sounds pretty dull, but think about it a bit more, and it becomes interesting.

What does the position of Federal Reserve Chair really mean? It’s the helm of the global financial system. Every interest rate decision directly affects the US stock market, bonds, gold, Bitcoin—the entire asset market’s nerves. Such power cannot be decided with a single statement; it must go through congressional hearings and multiple approvals. Back in Trump’s first term, Dimon was indeed considered, but it never materialized. Now, revisiting old news, both sides come out publicly saying "this isn’t true." Rather than just clarifying, it’s more like a carefully planned "cut"—a signal from the traditional giant JPMorgan Chase: don’t drag us into the political whirlpool.

Why bring up this topic at this particular time?

**First, political sensitivity.** With a power transfer imminent, any high-level personnel change will be magnified and interpreted broadly. The market is highly sensitive; even a slight breeze can trigger chain reactions.

**Second, stance declaration.** Wall Street giants like JPMorgan Chase dislike being caught in political struggles. Quickly clarifying indicates they’ve adjusted their view on the future power landscape.

**Third, asset pricing power.** The policy stance of the Federal Reserve Chair directly determines next year’s interest rate trajectory. Whether hawkish or dovish, it has a huge impact on assets like BTC and ETH, which are sensitive to interest rates. A rate cut cycle could boost crypto assets, while rate hike expectations could suppress valuations.

In essence, this isn’t just a casual rehash of old news; it’s an internal silent game of chess within traditional finance. The big players are quietly competing on the board, while retail investors watch and speculate. But there’s a pattern worth noting—each time such "old news" is rehashed, it’s usually laying the groundwork for a bigger move.

Looking at it from another angle, if a Wall Street background figure truly takes the helm of the Fed, what does that mean for assets like BTC and ETH, which rely on global liquidity and low-interest environments? Is it a blessing or a curse? Financial elites tend to prefer stability, but they might also understand the value of digital assets better. This uncertainty alone is enough to trigger market volatility.

Interested in chatting? If the Fed’s policy really shifts to easing, do you think the crypto market will usher in a new upward cycle?