资深分析师对谈：鲍威尔离任，沃什接任对加密意味着什么？

Compiled & Arranged by: Odaily TechFlow

Guest: Noelle Acheson

Host: Steve Ehrlich

Podcast Source: Unchaind

Original Title: Powell Is Out, Warsh Is In: What It Means for Crypto

Release Date: May 22

Editor's Note

The "Bliss Trade" (an expectation of big, lasting, persistent bailout), proposed by former IMF Chief Economist Gita Gopinath in the FT, is replacing the "Taco Trade" as the market's underlying logic. This is a structural expectation of a fiscal safety net, spanning parties and political systems, forming the true moat for current risk asset valuations and the core rationale for currency debasement trades.

Noelle Acheson, author of the *Crypto is Macro Now* newsletter, offered three core judgments in this podcast: First, the current extreme divergence between stocks and bonds is notable, with the bond market pricing in global tightening while stocks are driven by AI hype, reminiscent of the divergence between the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index and the market-cap weighted index before the 1999 dot-com bubble. Second, while Powell should be credited for defending the Fed's independence, we must not forget his role in the 2023 shutdown of Silvergate and the debanking of crypto companies. Third, inflation won't subside quickly; even if the Hormuz crisis ends tomorrow, it would take months for energy price pass-through and consumer expectations to repair, and higher inflation is a long-term trend driven by deglobalization that predated Trump's tariffs.

Key Takeaways

Stock-Bond Divergence, the "Bliss Trade," and Systemic Fragility

• "Global bond yields are rising; this is a global tightening, which isn't good for markets. But equities are marching to a different drummer. That's not new, but the scale of this divergence is staggering."
• "The bond market is traditionally called 'smart money' because it looks at macro data, narratives, and trends. Equities get caught up in hype cycles. Right now, stocks follow the hype, and bonds follow the macro. They're telling two completely different stories, and they don't need to be the same."
• "The Bliss Trade is structural, unlike the Taco Trade which was limited to the Trump term. It means that no government today would choose NOT to spend money to bail out its people during distress – a market crash, a banking crisis, or high oil prices. It's not about the party in power, or even necessarily democracy; we've seen it plenty of times south of the equator."
• "'The safety net' is now part of the system, and it adds another layer of fragility. That's one reason risk appetite remains so strong despite this very uncertain environment."
• "Historically, market tops are often triggered by one massive IPO."
• "My contrarian indicator right now is that everyone is cheering the S&P 500 hitting new highs, but ignoring the widening gap between the S&P 500 and its equal-weight index. The last time it widened this fast was in 1999. Anything top-heavy, by the laws of physics, eventually falls over."

Inflation Won't Subside Quickly

• "I have to challenge an assumption: inflation hasn't actually been coming down as much as people think. Since 2024, core CPI has been stuck between 2.6% and 3%, showing no decline."
• "The real cause of higher inflation is deglobalization. This trend even predates the Trump administration; it started under Biden. Trump is just accelerating and turbocharging it. Tariffs are oscillating wildly, and the Hormuz crisis has added a match underneath."
• "Even if the Hormuz crisis ends tomorrow, it takes time for energy prices to fall, and even longer for that to transmit to inflation indices and expectations. So this inflation story, regardless of how Hormuz plays out, isn't ending anytime soon."
• "A 3% target would be more reasonable, and many Fed officials think so privately. But they can't change the target because a huge part of the Fed's job is managing trust. If they changed the target, they'd be telling the market 'we can't hit the original one,' which would damage the entire trust framework."

Assessing Powell's Tenure

• "Powell looks like the grandpa you'd want to go grab a marshmallow latte with. But we can't forget he was the driving force behind the debanking of crypto companies, the shutdown of Silvergate, and the events of March 2023. He also completely misread inflation."
• "The word 'independence' itself deserves scrutiny. He deserves credit for pushing back against the DOJ subpoenas. But in shutting down crypto-related banking, we saw no independent thinking; it was politically influenced. Does independence mean being unaccountable for all decisions? Does it mean ignoring subpoenas?"
• "He wants to shrink the balance sheet, but the market won't let him. It's that simple. The bond market is the boss here. The Fed cannot afford a disorderly Treasury market; it affects the dollar and price stability. So he can wish for it, but it won't happen. I also wish I were a professional pianist, but that's not happening either."

The Cost of Bitcoin as a Macro Asset & The Clarity Act's Prospects

• "Bitcoin is a hedge against currency debasement. When it surged during the 2023 banking crisis, everyone said 'people realize banks are corrupt and fragile.' I said no, it's because people expected central banks to pump liquidity. That's what Bitcoin is really reacting to."
• "Bitcoin becoming a macro asset is good, but it comes at a cost; it's now just one macro asset among many. Investors seeking volatility will choose higher-volatility assets. Right now, that's not Bitcoin. There are countless AI narratives and prediction markets to trade – too many playable things."
• "Even if the Clarity Act passes this year, it won't have a big impact on Bitcoin, which already has regulatory clarity. The real beneficiary would be ETH. And when ETH rallies, it often pulls Bitcoin along due to correlated movements."
• "My concern is the detail on the innovation exemption for tokenization. If it allows third parties to issue tokens wrapping a company's stock without the company's knowledge or consent, that's a pure derivatives speculation market, not a market for capital formation. That contradicts the fundamental purpose of markets and is terrible for crypto's existing stigma of being 'purely speculative'."

Steve Ehrlich: Hello everyone. Welcome to Bits and Bips, where we explore the intersection of macro and crypto. I'm Steve Ehrlich, Head of Research at SharpLink, and your host today. We have a fantastic show today. There's a lot happening in macro: stocks and bonds are diverging wildly, crypto is caught in between, a new Fed Chair takes over tomorrow, and much more to discuss.

Let me introduce our guest. She previously worked at Genesis, served as Head of Research at CoinDesk, and is currently the author of the highly influential newsletter *Crypto is Macro Now*. Noelle Acheson, welcome.

Noelle Acheson: Hi Steve, great to be talking with you again.

Steve Ehrlich: How are you doing today?

Noelle Acheson: I'm still recovering from nearly 35-degree Celsius heat in Philadelphia. It's only May!

Steve Ehrlich: I get it, you'll probably have to get used to it. Like many watching today, I'm trying to figure out what's happening in the markets. As I said in the intro, equities are still grinding higher.

Noelle Acheson: Yes, but there are already some warning signs.

Steve Ehrlich: Right, Nvidia delivered another fantastic earnings report, but the market's reaction was muted. There's palpable panic in the bond market. Yields on the 10-year and 30-year are rising, something you've been watching closely. To make matters worse, we got the first inflation print after the start of the Iran war. No one is sure what happens next. Powell steps down as Fed Chair on Thursday, though he'll remain on the board, at least for the foreseeable future. Crypto is caught up in this too. Bitcoin moved up to the $80k-$83k range, ETH hit the $2400s, and now both have retraced.

So, let's take it one by one. First question: How do you interpret the panic in the bond market? Yields are being pushed higher, the 10-year and 30-year are going up, which seems like a worrying signal to me, but equities are largely unfazed.

Stock-Bond Divergence and the 'Smart Money' Bond Market Narrative

Noelle Acheson: You're right, they are worrying signals, and they're global warning signals. Global bond yields are rising; this is a global tightening, which isn't good for markets. But equities are marching to a different drummer. That's not new, but the scale of this divergence is.

You might remember everyone used to love the 60/40 portfolio, with the idea that stocks and bonds would move inversely. We do see an inverse correlation now, but the magnitude is staggering.

Equities are currently driven by some endogenous, temporary factors, mainly AI enthusiasm – just look at the semiconductor sector. Meanwhile, the bond market looks at the macro outlook and the future. The bond market is traditionally called 'smart money' because it focuses solely on macro data, narratives, and trends, whereas equities can get caught up in various hype cycles, and more frequently these days.

So the situation is: stocks follow the hype, which might have some foundation or not – we can discuss that; bonds follow the macro, and the macro indicators aren't looking good right now. That's why they tell two completely different stories, and they don't need to be the same.

Steve Ehrlich: Let's talk about those macro indicators. Everyone is watching inflation data, and PPI (Producer Price Index) is starting to tick up. What else are you seeing? How do you interpret these inflationary signals? I hesitate to use the word 'transitory,' but theoretically, if the Strait reopens and there's any resolution to the Iran situation, energy markets should at least return to pre-February 28th airstrike levels, and things should calm down.

Noelle Acheson: Things will calm down, at least for oil prices. But that doesn't mean inflation will fall immediately, for two reasons. First, inflation transmission is slow. We've already seen a slight uptick in the core indices the Fed tracks, but it's not huge because while oil affects everything, the transmission takes time.

Second, we will see increased volatility in expectations. This is very interesting, especially in the US economy, where gasoline prices have a huge impact on inflation expectations. Seeing the numbers tick up at the gas station feels like money being drained directly from your bank account. So even if gasoline doesn't enter core inflation, consumers already feel inflation is rising. This affects their expectations, their behavior, and ultimately, actual inflation.

So even if the Hormuz crisis ends tomorrow, it takes considerable time for energy prices to fall, and even longer for that to transmit to inflation indices and expectations. In other words, this inflation story isn't ending anytime soon, regardless of how Hormuz plays out, because it's not new; inflation was already building before the Hormuz crisis.

Steve Ehrlich: Can you elaborate on that? I know you're in Spain, giving a European perspective; I'm American. Since inflation came down from its post-COVID peak, the Fed has been raising rates to push it down. It hasn't reached the 2% target, but it was coming down. What do you mean by 'already building'?

Noelle Acheson: I have to challenge an assumption: it hasn't been coming down as much as you might think. Look at the chart since 2024; core CPI has been stuck between 2.6% and 3%, showing absolutely no decline.

In fact, a year, maybe a year and a half ago, many people were saying, "Okay, the inflation story is over, the disinflation process is done. We'll plateau here for a while and then it will go up again." Why the expectation for it to go back up? Because of deglobalization. This trend even predates the Trump administration; it started under Biden. So it's a long-term trend, and Trump is just accelerating and turbocharging it. Tariffs are oscillating wildly; the tariff rebate situation is still unclear, but prices have already gone up because of them. The Hormuz crisis added a match underneath. But honestly, if you look at the chart, inflation hasn't been falling for a long time.

Steve Ehrlich: You're right. I recall the discussion about whether the Fed should consider raising its 2% target and recalibrating the neutral rate.

Noelle Acheson: A 3% target would be reasonable. Many people discuss this, and many Fed officials think so privately. But they can't change the expected target. The fundamental issue is the Fed's credibility. A huge part of the Fed's job is managing trust. If they suddenly say, "We can't achieve 2%, so we're changing the target," that would damage the market's trust in the Fed's ability to meet its own goals.

Steve Ehrlich: Understood. We'll come back to the Fed and trust in about ten minutes.

From the Taco Trade to Structural Bailout Expectations

Steve Ehrlich: I want to push you further on this 'irresistible force vs. immovable object' dynamic between stocks and bonds. In your newsletter this week, you highlighted a very interesting opinion piece by the former Deputy Managing Director of the IMF about the so-called "Bliss Trade," which is seen as a potentially more sustainable extension of the "Taco Trade" and related to the expectation of a Fed put. I read a book a few months ago about the rise of the carry trade, arguing that the market will always have a backstop, an expectation turbocharged during COVID when global central banks had to flood the system to support the shut-down economy. Can you explain the Bliss Trade? And which side do you think gives way first?

Noelle Acheson: The Bliss Trade comes from a fascinating FT opinion piece a few weeks ago by Gita Gopinath, the former IMF Chief Economist and Deputy Managing Director, now a Harvard professor. You have to read it knowing her IMF background, but she makes an excellent point: the market's expectation of a 'backstop' or 'safety net' has moved beyond just the Taco Trade. The Taco Trade is certainly part of it – Trump certainly gives market participants countless 'events' to believe he'll eventually step back – but her argument is that this phenomenon is broader.

The Taco Trade was temporary, limited to the Trump term; but the 'Bliss Trade' stands for 'Big, Large, and Lasting Stimulus or Support' and is structural. Her argument is that today, no government would choose NOT to spend money to bail out its people during distress – a market crash, a banking crisis, or high oil prices. We saw it in 2020, again in 2022 with energy prices, and now in Europe due