The Real Culprit Behind the Crypto Crash: The Warsh Effect

Odaily星球日报Pubblicato 2026-02-01Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-01

Introduzione

The cryptocurrency market crash, termed the "Warsh Effect," is attributed to former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh's potential nomination as the next chair. Following the announcement, Bitcoin fell to $78,214 (down 6.9% in 24 hours, 12.4% weekly), Ethereum to $2,415 (down 10.5% in 24 hours, 18.2% weekly), and other major altcoins like Solana also experienced significant double-digit losses. Warsh, known as a monetary policy hawk, has historically emphasized inflation vigilance and criticized post-2008 crisis stimulus measures. Markets reacted negatively due to expectations of tighter monetary policy, higher real interest rates, and reduced liquidity—conditions unfavorable for risk assets like crypto. This triggered over $1 billion in net outflows from US Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, initiating a cascade of liquidations that accelerated the sell-off. However, Warsh has also expressed constructive views on Bitcoin, calling it a valuable policy barometer and highlighting the US strategic interest in leading crypto development. His appointment requires Senate confirmation and, even if approved, he would only be one vote on the FOMC, which currently holds a cautious consensus on rate cuts. The market's reaction reflects a clash between the bearish narrative of tighter liquidity and a bullish perspective that considers Warsh's pro-innovation stance and political context. The key upcoming event is his Senate confirmation hearing, which will provide clearer signals on future m...

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | jk

Open any crypto data platform, and you'll see a sea of red.

As of press time, Bitcoin (BTC) is currently at $78,214, down 6.9% in 24 hours and 12.4% over 7 days. Ethereum (ETH) is even worse, currently at $2,415, down 10.5% in 24 hours and 18.2% over 7 days. Solana (SOL) did not escape either: $103.51, down 11.6% in 24 hours and 18.4% over 7 days. Looking at BNB and XRP, the declines are also in double digits.

The question is, what triggered this collective retreat?

The answer points to the same name: Kevin Warsh.

On January 30, US President Donald Trump announced on the social platform Truth Social his nomination of former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh as the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to succeed Jerome Powell, whose term expires in May.

This news triggered a chain reaction in the financial markets. Gold and silver both plummeted yesterday, with silver falling over 30%; and the cryptocurrency market began to feel the pressure last night. Bitcoin dropped from around $90,400 around the time of the nomination to near $81,000, then continued to fall to the current $78,214. Daily ETF outflows approached $10 billion, triggering a chain reaction of liquidations.

On the surface, this is just a personnel appointment. But the underlying logic is far more complex. This article attempts to unravel: which market nerves did this so-called "Warsh Effect" touch? Is the crypto crash a rational pre-judgment of monetary policy direction, or an emotionally driven overreaction?

Who is Kevin Warsh in the Warsh Effect?

Before understanding the market reaction, it's necessary to first know this person, the new Fed Chair nominee.

To learn more about him, you can read this article: "Estée Lauder Son-in-Law' Kevin Warsh Takes Helm at the Fed, Hawkish Bigwig Turns Out to Be a Crypto Ally?"

Kevin Warsh, 55, a Stanford graduate with a degree from Harvard Law School, previously worked in mergers and acquisitions at Morgan Stanley. In 2006, at the age of 35, he was appointed as a Federal Reserve Governor, making him the youngest governor in Fed history at that time. He served during the core period of the 2008 global financial crisis, acting as the liaison between the Fed and financial markets, experiencing some of the most difficult monetary policy decision-making moments in history.

After leaving the Fed, Warsh moved into academia and think tanks, currently serving as a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution, a lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and also working at the Duquesne Family Office founded by renowned investor Stanley Druckenmiller.

His political底色 is that of a monetary policy hawk. During the financial crisis, when the global economy was precarious and deflation risks were even greater than inflation risks, he repeatedly emphasized vigilance against inflation, even dissenting against the Fed's second round of quantitative easing (QE2). He has long criticized the Fed's post-crisis over-stimulation of the economy, believing that "large-scale asset purchases and zero-interest-rate policies risk distorting markets and damaging long-term price stability."

This was the first alarm bell triggered in the market upon hearing his nomination.

Why Did the Crypto Market Crash? Core Logic Explained

1. Liquidity Tightening

The crypto market bull run has long been built on a core logic: liquidity injected by loose monetary policy is the cornerstone driving the price rise of risk assets. When the Fed maintains low interest rates and continuously expands its balance sheet, massive amounts of capital flow into areas beyond traditional financial products with low fixed-income returns: stocks, real estate, cryptocurrencies.

Warsh's hawkish reputation implies the exact opposite direction. He倾向于 tighter monetary policy, reducing the Fed's balance sheet, and maintaining higher real interest rates. In such a macro environment, capital flows back to safe assets, risk appetite declines, and cryptocurrencies will be the first to be affected.

Markus Thielen, founder of 10x Research, summarized this precisely: The market普遍 believes that Warsh's emphasis on monetary discipline and preference for higher real rates will reclassify crypto from a "hedge against dollar devaluation" back to a "speculative bubble that fades when liquidity dries up."

2. ETF Inflows Reverse

The transmission mechanism of this crash at the technical level is particularly noteworthy. After the Warsh nomination news landed, US-listed spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs experienced nearly $10 billion in net outflows in a single trading day. This figure alone is enough to cause an impact, but its ripple effects are even more significant.

ETF outflows trigger price declines, which in turn hit the liquidation lines (stop-loss) of the market's大量杠杆仓位. This is a classic vicious cycle mechanism: the selling pressure from forced liquidations further drives down prices, which then triggers more liquidations, forming a self-reinforcing cycle. After the key support around $85,000 (near the 100-week simple moving average) for Bitcoin was broken, this cascading effect accelerated sharply, with prices sliding to around $81,000, and have since fallen further to $78,214.

This liquidation did not affect all assets uniformly. As the situation evolved, L1 tokens other than Bitcoin generally fell more than BTC. Ethereum fell 18.2% over 7 days, Solana reached 18.4%, and XRP also fell as much as 15.5%, all significantly exceeding Bitcoin's 12.4% drop. This structural differentiation has a clear logical explanation: Bitcoin, due to the widespread adoption of ETF products, has relatively deeper institutional liquidity and a more robust price support mechanism; while ETH, SOL, and other L1 tokens trade more relying on杠杆仓位 on crypto-native platforms, making them more susceptible to being crushed by liquidation cascades when liquidity dries up. For projects on the Solana ecosystem, SOL's own 18.4% drop means direct impacts on on-chain activity and transaction volume.

Furthermore, looking at the overall ETF inflow trend for 2026, there has already been a net outflow of approximately $32 million, forming a sharp contrast with the combined inflows of over $35 billion in 2024 and 2025.

3. Squeeze on Risk Assets from Rising Real Rates

When real interest rates (the "real" cost of borrowing after subtracting the inflation rate from the nominal rate) rise, the cost of holding high-risk assets becomes apparent. Traditional assets offer higher yields, prompting capital to withdraw from crypto assets like Bitcoin and转向 bonds and other safer allocations.

Warsh's consistent stance on "higher real interest rates" directly threatens this market's pricing foundation. A large number of杠杆仓位 in the crypto market rely on low-cost borrowing to maintain; rising real rates mean soaring leverage costs and increased pressure on these positions.

But His Attitude Towards Bitcoin is Far More Complex Than the Market Judged

The crypto market crash is primarily driven by concerns about the direction of macro monetary policy—this is an undeniable fact. However, if we only use "hawkish monetary policy" to completely characterize Warsh's attitude towards the crypto space, we would miss a very important dimension: he actually holds an unusually constructive view of Bitcoin itself.

In a 2025 Hoover Institution interview, Warsh clearly stated: “Bitcoin doesn't make me nervous... I see it as an important asset that can help policymakers judge whether they are doing the right thing or the wrong thing.” He characterized Bitcoin as the "good cop" of policy making—its price fluctuations can signal mistakes made by the Fed in inflation management and monetary policy execution.

Going further, Warsh framed the cryptocurrency industry as a matter of national economic competitiveness. He emphasized that the main hubs for Bitcoin and cryptocurrency software development are in the US, implying that the US has a strategic interest in maintaining its leading position in this field. He has also personally invested in crypto startups.

Confirmation Hearing and Future Policy Direction

For now, Warsh has not officially taken office. His appointment still needs to go through the US Senate confirmation process. Senator Thom Tillis has already publicly stated he will block the confirmation of any Fed Chair nominee until an investigation into the Fed's building renovation issues is completed. This means the entire confirmation process could be fraught with uncertainty.

More crucially, even if Warsh最终 takes office, he cannot single-handedly control monetary policy. Fed interest rate decisions are made by the entire FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) vote; Warsh would be just one of twelve votes. Currently, a majority of FOMC members have clearly stated that they are unwilling to continue cutting rates without more substantial evidence that inflation is steadily returning to the 2% target. The December dot plot showed only one rate cut anticipated in 2026 and another in 2027.

This means that regardless of Warsh's personal leanings, actual monetary policy actions will depend on the consensus of the entire committee—and that consensus currently remains cautious.

Outlook for the Crypto Market

Overall, the current market reaction to Warsh's nomination contains two截然不同的 narratives:

Bearish Narrative (Mainstream Market Reaction): The "Warsh Effect"意味着 tighter monetary policy, higher real interest rates, and a smaller Fed balance sheet. This directly compresses the liquidity environment that cryptocurrencies rely on for survival. Current market data already reflects this impact—BTC's current price of $78,214 is down about 13.5% from the pre-nomination level of $90,400; and Solana, with an 18.4% 7-day drop, leads the decline list. For Solana ecosystem projects, DeFi protocols, and token issuance activities that rely on low-cost leverage, this is a real structural risk signal.

Bullish Narrative (Some Community Voices): The "Warsh Effect" holds a positive attitude towards Bitcoin itself, the Trump administration overall still tends to support the crypto industry, and Warsh has recently hinted that he is willing to greenlight rate cuts under conditions of productivity improvement. Not to mention, he cannot decide interest rates alone.

The真正值得关注的 node will be the Senate confirmation hearing:届时 Warsh will be questioned on his specific positions regarding monetary policy, crypto regulation, and CBDCs. The direction of this hearing may determine the fate of the crypto industry for the coming months more than any market speculation today.

For projects currently driving community growth and token ecosystem development, the most significant practical meaning of the "Warsh Effect" at present is: the macro liquidity environment is entering a period of uncertainty. Short-term sentiment fluctuations have already occurred, but the real policy impact is still on the way.

Domande pertinenti

QWho is Kevin Warsh and why is his nomination as Fed Chair impacting the crypto market?

AKevin Warsh is a former Federal Reserve Governor known for his hawkish monetary policy stance. His nomination has triggered a crypto market sell-off because investors fear he will pursue tighter monetary policy, higher real interest rates, and reduced liquidity, which are negative for risk assets like cryptocurrencies.

QWhat is the 'Warsh Effect' and how did it lead to the crypto market crash?

AThe 'Warsh Effect' refers to the market's reaction to Kevin Warsh's nomination, anticipating a shift towards tighter monetary policy. This caused a sharp drop in crypto prices due to expectations of reduced liquidity, higher borrowing costs, and a reversal of ETF inflows, triggering a cascade of liquidations.

QWhy did Bitcoin ETFs experience significant outflows following the news of Warsh's nomination?

ABitcoin ETFs saw nearly $1 billion in outflows because investors, fearing a hawkish Fed under Warsh would reduce market liquidity and increase rates, rapidly sold their ETF holdings. This selling pressure triggered stop-losses and a downward spiral in prices.

QHow does Kevin Warsh's view on Bitcoin contrast with his hawkish monetary reputation?

ADespite his hawkish monetary stance, Warsh has a constructive view on Bitcoin. He sees it as an important asset that acts as a 'canary in the coal mine' for policy mistakes and believes the U.S. should maintain competitiveness in the crypto space, having even invested in crypto startups.

QWhat are the key factors that will determine the future impact of Warsh's potential leadership on crypto?

AThe future impact depends on whether Warsh is confirmed by the Senate, his actual influence on Fed policy (as he is only one vote on the FOMC), and his stated positions during confirmation hearings on monetary policy and crypto regulation. The broader FOMC's cautious stance on rate cuts also remains a crucial factor.

Letture associate

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

"The Inevitable Cycle: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup – What is Ethereum's Endgame?" For years, the Ethereum community grappled with concerns that L2s were fragmenting the ecosystem and eroding L1's value. While L2s provided cheaper execution, they also splintered liquidity and the unified user experience of a single chain. This has prompted a fundamental reassessment of the relationship between L1 and L2. Ethereum's roadmap is evolving. The "Scale" initiative merges L1 and L2 expansion into a holistic framework. L1 itself is advancing with higher gas limits, statelessness, and zkEVM verification, no longer content to be just a low-throughput settlement layer. Consequently, the primary value proposition of L2s is shifting from merely providing cheap blockspace to offering L1 cannot easily provide: application-specific optimizations, privacy features, and flexible governance models. L2s are becoming a spectrum of execution environments with varying degrees of security inheritance from Ethereum. A critical challenge in this multi-chain future is interoperability. The vision is to make Ethereum "feel like one chain again." This relies on advancements in native account abstraction (like EIP-7702) and intent-based architectures (Open Intents Framework), where users declare desired outcomes, and solvers handle the complex cross-chain execution. Furthermore, shortening Ethereum's finality time from minutes to seconds is crucial, as it underpins trust between chains for bridges, stablecoins, and cross-chain applications. Perhaps the most provocative idea is that Ethereum L1 itself could become a form of "its own Rollup." As zkEVM and proof systems mature, high-performance nodes could execute transactions and generate validity proofs. Regular validators would then verify these proofs instead of re-executing all transactions. This blurs the traditional L1/L2 hierarchy, making "Rollup" more of a general execution-verification architecture. Native Rollup aims to integrate L2 validation more directly into the Ethereum protocol, allowing L2s to inherit L1's security more fully and move away from reliance on security councils. In the end, L2s are not destined to replace L1 or be made obsolete by it. The likely future is a unified system where diverse execution environments—each optimized for specific use cases like DeFi, gaming, or privacy—coexist. They will share a common foundation of security, liquidity, and verifiable state, seamlessly connected to restore a cohesive user experience. The next phase for Ethereum is not just about scaling through separation, but about intelligently reintegrating what was separated back into a coherent whole.

链捕手5 min fa

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

链捕手5 min fa

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

The era of fragmented AI agents is ending. Over the past month, China's tech giants—Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance—have simultaneously shifted strategy: instead of launching new, standalone AI agents, they are consolidating their various agent projects into unified "super workbenches." Tencent integrated its QClaw teams into WorkBuddy, a strategic product hailed as a potential third flagship after QQ and WeChat. Alibaba is merging its QoderWork, Wukong, and MuleRun agents into a new "Qianwen Office" platform under DingTalk's leadership. ByteDance rebranded its TRAE SOLO coding agent to TRAE Work, signaling a broader focus on workflow collaboration. This convergence marks a pivotal industry consensus. The initial exploration phase, where companies rapidly built numerous overlapping agents for different scenarios, proved costly and inefficient. With open-source tools eroding technical barriers, competition has shifted from agent creation to resource consolidation and cost control. Historically, platform wars are won not by creating more products, but by simplifying them—as seen with browsers unifying web access and super-apps consolidating services. Now, the "super workbench" aims to become the unified AI entry point for work. This reflects a deeper market realization: the primary audience for AI is no longer just programmers (a market in the tens of millions) but all knowledge workers (a market of billions). The real opportunity lies in augmenting everyday tasks—managing emails, documents, data, and meetings—across the entire workday. The core battleground is becoming control over the primary AI entry point that employees use daily. Tencent's WorkBuddy leverages WeChat and Tencent Docs; Alibaba's Qianwen Office taps into DingTalk's organizational data; ByteDance's TRAE Work integrates with Feishu's workflows. Whoever owns this "super workbench" gains strategic control over orchestrating enterprise data and APIs. This shift is redefining enterprise software. Traditional SaaS applications, valued for their user interfaces, will recede into the background. Their core functionalities will be exposed as standardized "Skills" or APIs for the super workbench's agents to invoke. Software value will shift from selling user seats to charging based on API calls and outcomes delivered. The evolution of agents is moving through clear stages: first as novel standalone products, then as consolidated primary work entry points, and finally as pervasive, invisible capabilities embedded into the digital fabric. The recent moves by major tech firms signal the transition from the first stage into the second, accelerating toward the third. In the end, the most successful agent technology may become invisible—like electricity or the HTTP protocol—a fundamental, unnamed infrastructure powering work itself.

marsbit33 min fa

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit33 min fa

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit48 min fa

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit48 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片