#美联储降息 The Fed's December meeting has become a rare "divided scene"—5 of the 12 voting members of the FOMC opposed the rate cut, which is the first time since 2019. Looking at Powell's stance, he seems determined to push for a 25 basis point cut, but what is the cost worth following.

The core contradiction lies in the differing interpretations of the employment data. The official stance is that employment growth is slowing, but the key issue has been obscured: is it weak labor demand (supporting rate cuts), or is it a reduction in immigration leading to a contraction in supply (opposing rate cuts)? The policy directions in these two scenarios are completely opposite.

What is even more concerning is the resurfacing of the "stagflation risk". With prices remaining firm and a cooling labor market, this kind of trade-off hasn't been seen in decades. The lessons of the 1970s are clear — the Fed's stop-and-go approach has entrenched high inflation. The probability of repeating this mistake is rising.

From an on-chain perspective, liquidity expectations are key. If the signal for balance sheet expansion is confirmed (monthly purchases of $45 billion in short-term government bonds), this will directly affect the flow of funds. But don't be fooled by the superficial rate cuts – the real signal lies in the Fed's change in attitude towards future rate cut intentions and the reconstruction of the policy framework in 2026. Powell's term lasts until May next year, and the statements from the next three meetings will reflect the direction more accurately than tonight's resolution. The match between data and whale movements is the standard for judgment.