Recently, as soon as the Federal Reserve meeting ended, the buzz in the background consultation channels never stopped. Some are eager to ask if the floodgates are opening, some are rubbing their fists ready to go all-in, and others are digging into history, saying that last time the flood caused Bitcoin to triple in value—will this time replicate the miracle?
Honestly, this question seems simple, but in reality, it’s a deep trap. Having been in the circle for so many years, I’ve seen too many newcomers get wiped out by this logic. Today, I’ll break down how the Federal Reserve’s liquidity injections affect the crypto market, so that after listening, you can operate with fewer pitfalls.
**What is the essence of liquidity injection**
The Federal Reserve’s liquidity injection, in plain terms, is printing money. By buying government bonds and cutting interest rates, it increases market liquidity and lowers borrowing costs. These new funds have a clear characteristic—they tend to flock to high-yield, highly liquid areas. As a high-risk, high-reward field, the crypto market indeed attracts some hot money, but there are two issues that can easily cause losses: first, a “time lag,” and second, the hierarchy of capital entering the market is very particular.
**Why doesn’t it always lead to a rise immediately**
At the initial stage of liquidity injection, institutional funds enter with strict risk controls. They don’t blindly rush into small-cap coins but prioritize large-cap cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which have ample liquidity and broad consensus. This creates a clear phenomenon: mainstream coins move first, followed by altcoins, but the differentiation among them is extremely fierce.
Take the March 2020 Federal Reserve liquidity boost as an example. When the signal was first released, Bitcoin indeed led the charge. That’s why we often see the “leading effect”—when Bitcoin moves, other coins gradually follow. But if you only focus on small-cap coins at that time, it’s easy to miss the main upward wave.
This is the hurdle, and it’s also why you shouldn’t rush into operations based solely on the words “liquidity injection.”
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.
14 Likes
Reward
14
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
CommunityJanitor
· 15h ago
Here we go again? History may repeat itself, but your wallet won't
View OriginalReply0
Blockblind
· 15h ago
Using this set again? "Flooding" = increase. This logic is outdated; those who fall into the trap just don't understand the time difference.
View OriginalReply0
GasWaster
· 16h ago
ngl the timing delta is the real killer here... watched so many degens FOMO into alts while btc was still doing its thing, gas fees were already brutal too lmao
Reply0
AirdropDreamer
· 16h ago
Here we go again with the theory of history repeating itself. I'll be straight with you: those who get trapped are always the ones watching meme coins wait for takeoff.
View OriginalReply0
BearHugger
· 16h ago
Sounds like the same old story... The theory of history repeating itself is deadly. I got caught in the same way back in 2020, haha.
Recently, as soon as the Federal Reserve meeting ended, the buzz in the background consultation channels never stopped. Some are eager to ask if the floodgates are opening, some are rubbing their fists ready to go all-in, and others are digging into history, saying that last time the flood caused Bitcoin to triple in value—will this time replicate the miracle?
Honestly, this question seems simple, but in reality, it’s a deep trap. Having been in the circle for so many years, I’ve seen too many newcomers get wiped out by this logic. Today, I’ll break down how the Federal Reserve’s liquidity injections affect the crypto market, so that after listening, you can operate with fewer pitfalls.
**What is the essence of liquidity injection**
The Federal Reserve’s liquidity injection, in plain terms, is printing money. By buying government bonds and cutting interest rates, it increases market liquidity and lowers borrowing costs. These new funds have a clear characteristic—they tend to flock to high-yield, highly liquid areas. As a high-risk, high-reward field, the crypto market indeed attracts some hot money, but there are two issues that can easily cause losses: first, a “time lag,” and second, the hierarchy of capital entering the market is very particular.
**Why doesn’t it always lead to a rise immediately**
At the initial stage of liquidity injection, institutional funds enter with strict risk controls. They don’t blindly rush into small-cap coins but prioritize large-cap cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which have ample liquidity and broad consensus. This creates a clear phenomenon: mainstream coins move first, followed by altcoins, but the differentiation among them is extremely fierce.
Take the March 2020 Federal Reserve liquidity boost as an example. When the signal was first released, Bitcoin indeed led the charge. That’s why we often see the “leading effect”—when Bitcoin moves, other coins gradually follow. But if you only focus on small-cap coins at that time, it’s easy to miss the main upward wave.
This is the hurdle, and it’s also why you shouldn’t rush into operations based solely on the words “liquidity injection.”