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 & Organized: Odaily TechFlow

Guest: Noelle Acheson

Host: Steve Ehrlich

Podcast Source: Unchaind

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

Air Date: May 22

Editor's Introduction

The "Bliss Trade" (expectation of large, persistent bailouts) proposed by former IMF Chief Economist Gita Gopinath in the FT is replacing the "Taco Trade" as the underlying logic of the market. This is a structural, cross-party, cross-regime expectation of fiscal backstops, forming the true moat for current risk asset valuations and the core rationale for the currency depreciation trade.

Noelle Acheson, author of the Crypto is Macro Now newsletter, offered three core judgments in the podcast: First, the current extreme divergence between stocks and bonds sees the bond market pricing in a global tightening while the stock market is driven by AI hype, similar to the divergence between the S&P 500 equal-weight index and its market-cap-weighted index before the 1999 dot-com bubble; Second, while giving Powell credit for defending the Fed's independence, we must not forget he oversaw the shutdown of Silvergate and the debanking of crypto companies in 2023; Third, inflation will not subside quickly. Even if the Hormuz crisis ends tomorrow, it would take months to repair energy price transmission and consumer expectations, and the trend of rising inflation, driven by deglobalization, predates Trump's tariffs.

Key Takeaways

Stock-Bond Divergence, "Bliss Trade," and Systemic Vulnerability

• "Global bond yields are rising. This is a global tightening, which isn't good for markets. But the stock market always marches to a different drummer. That's not new; what's new is the magnitude of this divergence. It's astonishing."
• "The bond market is traditionally called 'smart money' because they look at macro data, narratives, and trends; the stock market gets swept up in various hype cycles. The current situation is that stocks follow hype, bonds follow macro indicators. They're telling two completely different stories, but they don't have to be the same."
• "The Bliss Trade is structural, unlike the Taco Trade which was limited to Trump's term. It means that no government today would choose not to spend money to bail out its people when they're in trouble – whether it's a market crash, a banking crisis, or high oil prices. This has nothing to do with political parties, or even whether it's a democracy. We've seen it happen many times south of the equator."
• "'Backstops' are now part of the system, which, of course, adds another layer of fragility. It's also one reason why risk appetite remains so strong despite such an uncertain environment."
• "Historically, market tops are often triggered by a mega-sized IPO."
• "The contrarian indicator I'm most focused on now is that everyone's cheering the S&P 500 hitting new highs, while ignoring the widening gap between the S&P 500 and its equal-weight index. The last time it widened at this speed was in 1999. Anything top-heavy, by the laws of physics, is bound to topple."

Inflation Won't Subside Quickly

• "I must push back on an assumption. Inflation hasn't actually been subsiding as much as many people think. Since 2024, core CPI has been oscillating between 2.6% and 3%. It hasn't dropped at all."
• "The real reason inflation is rising is deglobalization, a trend that started even before the Trump administration, during Biden's term. Trump is just accelerating it, putting it on a turbocharger. Tariffs go back and forth, and the Hormuz crisis lit a match underneath it all."
• "Even if the Hormuz crisis ended tomorrow, it would take 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 the Hormuz situation plays out, won't end anytime soon."
• "A target rate of 3% would have been reasonable. Many Fed officials privately think so. But they can't change the target because a big part of the Fed's job is managing trust. Once you change the target, you're telling the market 'we can't achieve the original target,' and the entire framework of Fed credibility gets damaged."

Powell's Legacy: Merits and Faults

• "Powell looks like the grandpa you'd want to go get a marshmallow latte with. But we mustn't forget he was also the driving force behind the debanking of crypto companies, the mastermind behind the Silvergate shutdown and the series of events in March 2023, and he completely misjudged inflation."
• "The word 'independence' itself is worth scrutinizing. He deserves credit for pushing back when the DOJ subpoenas arrived. But on the matter of shutting down crypto-related banking, there was no independent thinking; it was politically influenced. Does independence mean not being accountable for any decision? 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 can't allow disorder in the Treasury market because 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 it's not going to happen."

The Cost of Bitcoin Becoming a Macro Asset & The Outlook for the Clarity Act

• "Bitcoin is a hedge against currency debasement. When Bitcoin skyrocketed during the 2023 banking crisis, everyone said, 'because people realize the banking system is corrupt and fragile.' I said no, it's because people expected central banks to inject liquidity. That's what Bitcoin truly reacts to."
• "Bitcoin becoming a macro asset is a good thing, but it comes with a cost. It's now just one macro asset among many. Investors chasing volatility will choose higher-volatility assets, and right now, that's not Bitcoin. There are countless AI narratives and prediction markets to speculate on; there's plenty to play with."
• "Even if the Clarity Act passes this year, it won't affect Bitcoin much. Bitcoin isn't lacking regulatory clarity. The true beneficiary is ETH, and when ETH rallies, it often drags Bitcoin up with it because they frequently move in the same direction."
• "I'm concerned about the details of the innovation exemption for tokenization. If it allows third parties to issue tokens wrapping company shares without the company's knowledge or consent, then it creates a market purely for derivative speculation, not capital formation. This contradicts the fundamental purpose of markets and is detrimental to the crypto industry's existing stigma of being 'purely speculative'."

Steve Ehrlich: Hello everyone, welcome back 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. This is going to be a fantastic episode. There's a lot happening in the macro world. Stocks and bonds are going in completely opposite directions, and crypto is caught in the middle. A new Fed Chair takes office tomorrow, and there's plenty more to discuss.

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

Noelle Acheson: Hi Steve, great to talk to you again.

Steve Ehrlich: How are you doing today?

Noelle Acheson: I'm still recovering from the nearly 35-degree Celsius heat in Philadelphia. It's so hot for May.

Steve Ehrlich: I get it. You'll probably have to get used to this weather. Like many of you watching today, I'm also trying to figure out what's happening in the markets. As I mentioned at the start, the stock market is still holding up.

Noelle Acheson: Yes, but some warning signals are starting to appear.

Steve Ehrlich: Right. Nvidia delivered another excellent earnings report, but the market reaction was muted. There's considerable panic in the bond market, with 10-year and 30-year yields moving higher, a trend you've been watching closely. To make matters worse, we got our first inflation data following the start of the Iran conflict. No one is sure what happens next. Powell steps down as Fed Chair on Thursday, although he'll remain on the board for voting purposes, at least for the foreseeable future. Crypto is caught up in this too. Bitcoin rallied to the $80,000-$83,000 range recently, and ETH spiked to the $2,400 area, but both have since pulled back.

So, let's take it one by one. First question: How do you interpret the sense of panic in the bond market? Yields are being pushed up, the 10-year and 30-year are rising. To me, these are concerning signals, but the stock market is largely unfazed.

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

Noelle Acheson: You're right, they are concerning, and they are global warning signals. Global bond yields are rising. This is a global tightening, which is bad for markets. But the stock market always marches to a different drummer. That's not new; what's new is the scale of this divergence.

You might remember when everyone loved the 60/40 portfolio, where stocks and bonds were theoretically supposed to move inversely. We are seeing an inverse relationship now, but the scale is alarming.

Currently, the stock market is driven by specific, perhaps temporary, factors – mainly enthusiasm for AI, just look at the chip sector. The bond market, however, is looking at the macro outlook, the future. The bond market is traditionally called "smart money" because it focuses solely on macro data, narratives, and trends. The stock market can get caught up in various hype cycles, and increasingly so.

So, the situation now is that stocks are following hype – which may or may not have some foundation, we can discuss that later – while bonds are following macro indicators, which are not looking good. That's why they are telling two completely different stories, but they don't have to be the same.

Steve Ehrlich: Let's talk about those macro indicators. The inflation data is what everyone is focused on. PPI (Producer Price Index) is also starting to pick up. What else are you seeing? How do you interpret these inflation signals? I hate using the word "transitory," but theoretically, if the Strait were to reopen, if there's any resolution to the Iran situation, the energy market would at least return to levels before the February 28 airstrikes, and things should calm down.

Noelle Acheson: Things would calm down, at least in terms of oil prices. But it doesn't mean inflation would immediately subside, for two reasons. First, the transmission of inflation is slow. We've already seen some uptick in the core metrics the Fed watches, but it's not huge, because oil, while it affects everything, takes time to transmit through the economy.

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

So, even if the Hormuz crisis ended tomorrow, it would take a considerable time for energy prices to come down, and even longer for that to be transmitted to inflation indices and expectations. In other words, the inflation story isn't going to end anytime soon, regardless of how the Hormuz situation plays out, because this isn't new. Inflation was actually building up before the Hormuz crisis.

Steve Ehrlich: Can you elaborate on that? I know you're in Spain, so you have 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. While it hasn't reached the 2% target, it has been trending down. What do you mean by "building up" already?

Noelle Acheson: I have to push back on an assumption. It hasn't been coming down as much as you think. Look at the chart since 2024. Core CPI has been oscillating between 2.6% and 3%. It hasn't been declining at all.

In fact, a year, or even a year and a half ago, many people said, 'Okay, the inflation story is over. The disinflation process is done. We're going to hover here for a while and then it's going to go back up.' Why the expectation for it to go back up? Because of the trend of deglobalization, which started even before the Trump administration, during the Biden term. So this is a long-term trend. Trump is just accelerating it, putting it on a turbocharger. Tariffs are fluctuating, the situation with tariff refunds is unclear, but prices have already moved up because of the tariffs. The Hormuz crisis is just adding another spark underneath it. But honestly, if you look at the chart, inflation hasn't been declining for a long time.

Steve Ehrlich: You're right. I remember discussions about whether the Fed should raise its 2% target, recalibrate the neutral rate.

Noelle Acheson: 3% would be a reasonable target. Many people are talking about this, even many Fed officials privately think so, but they can't change the target expectation. The reason is the Fed's fundamental issue is credibility. A huge part of the Fed's job is managing trust. If they suddenly say, 'We can't reach 2%, so we're changing the target,' that would undermine market confidence in the Fed's ability to achieve its own objectives.

Steve Ehrlich: Understood. We'll probably get back to the Fed and credibility in about ten minutes.

From Taco Trade to Structural Bailout Expectations

Steve Ehrlich: I want to press you a bit more on this "irresistible force vs. immovable object" between stocks and bonds. In your newsletter this week, you pointed out a very interesting op-ed by the former IMF Deputy Director about the so-called "Bliss Trade," which might be a more sustainable extension of the Taco Trade, in the same family as the Fed put. I read a book a few months ago about the rise of carry trades, arguing that there will always be a backstop in the market, and this expectation was turbocharged during COVID when central banks globally had to flood the system to support the shut-down economy. Can you explain this Bliss Trade concept? Which side do you think breaks first?

Noelle Acheson: The Bliss Trade comes from a very interesting op-ed in the FT a few weeks ago by Gita Gopinath, former IMF Chief Economist and Deputy Director, now a professor at Harvard. You have to read it within the context of her IMF background, but she makes a brilliant point: the market's expectation of