Here's an interesting contradiction worth watching: the potential Fed chair keeps emphasizing that monetary policy must stay free from political interference. Yet his close ties to the former president raise eyebrows. Markets hate uncertainty, and this kind of mixed signal? That's exactly what creates it. The real question isn't what he says—it's whether the proximity to power will test those principles when it matters most.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
ForkItAllvip
· 18h ago
ngl, it sounds great, but when it really comes time to pick a side or choose money... heh, let's just wait and see.
View OriginalReply0
SleepyValidatorvip
· 18h ago
Hey, it's the same old story again... Sounds nice, but at the critical moment, it still comes down to who holds on tighter.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeNightmarevip
· 19h ago
Reading this news late at night just makes me anxious—political risks, market uncertainty, and even gas fees are about to soar...
View OriginalReply0
DAOdreamervip
· 19h ago
Saying one thing and doing another—I’ve seen this trick way too many times. When it really matters, I have no idea what choice he’ll make.
View OriginalReply0
GasBankruptervip
· 19h ago
They talk about independence, but behind the scenes they're in bed with the elites. Haven't we seen this trick plenty of times before?
View OriginalReply0
BearHuggervip
· 19h ago
That sounds nice, but can they really hold the line when it matters? I don't believe it...
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)