Buy Bitcoin or Gold? Wall Street tycoons interpret the market landscape under Trumps new policy

Compiled edited by TechFlow

Guest: Jordi Visser, Macro Investor, Former President CIO of Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers (over 30 years of Wall Street investment experience)

Moderator: Anthony Pompliano, Founder CEO of Professional Capital Management

Podcast source: Anthony Pompliano

Original title: Trump Throws Bitcoin Stocks Into CHAOS

Air date: March 15, 2025

Summary of key points

Jordi Visser is a macro investor with over 30 years of experience on Wall Street. He not only runs a Substack investment column called VisserLabs, but also regularly publishes investment-related YouTube videos. In this interview, we had an in-depth discussion around Trumps economic policies, including tariffs, tax proposals, Trumps disagreement with Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, inflation issues, the comparison between gold and Bitcoin, the stock market outlook, and interpersonal relationships and policy uncertainty within the Trump administration.

Summary of highlights

• Bitcoin is “gold with wings” because it is more volatile and has higher upside.

• Once the Nasdaq rebounds, Bitcoin will outperform gold.

• The stock market and cryptocurrencies are not just investment tools for many people, but also their hope.

• Golds appeal is more concentrated among the older generation of investors, while the younger generation is more inclined to choose Bitcoin.

• Tariffs are effectively a disguised tax aimed at transferring funds from the private sector to the public sector to ease debt pressure.

• Tariff policy is both an actual taxation measure and a negotiating tool.

• I think this income tax proposal is intended to solve the problem of wealth distribution in the country.

• From a neutral perspective, I don’t think Trump’s tax policy is simply to help the rich. In fact, his policy is more focused on the issue of domestic wealth distribution.

• Generally speaking, market corrections of 20% to 30% are often associated with recessions, and there are no signs that we are heading towards a recession.

• Now may be a good time to look for future investment opportunities.

• A recession is usually accompanied by a credit crisis, and the current size of the private sector credit market is not large compared to the stock market.

• A recession is defined as a loss of about 1.5% of employment, which means about 2.5 million people are out of work and won’t be able to find a job for a year or two.

• First, when the scale of debt is too large, the market may collapse very quickly; second, the root cause of many problems lies in the process of deleveraging, and the rapid release of leverage will exacerbate market turmoil.

• Both the consumer confidence index and the University of Michigan survey data show that current sentiment indicators are far below expectations. An important reason behind this phenomenon is the uneven distribution of wealth.

• The market is more concerned about inflation in the short term. According to the survey data, this divergence in expectations also reflects political differences: Democrats generally believe that inflation will rise further, while Republicans believe that inflation will fall.

What is the Trump administrations economic plan?

Anthony Pompliano: The Trump administration is moving forward with a series of policies at a rapid pace, but to many people, it all looks chaotic and uncertain. The stock market is falling, and people are eager to know what their plans are? What are they doing? Maybe we can start by understanding what they are trying to achieve and why.

Jordi Visser:

I think the biggest confusion in the market right now is: Does the Trump administration really have a clear plan? If so, what is the plan? How do they implement it? This uncertainty has confused many people and caused fluctuations in market sentiment. Some recent surveys show that the uncertainty index is rising sharply. Last week, FactSet released a report on corporate earnings changes in the first quarter, in which earnings expectations were significantly lowered, which was mainly attributed to the markets uncertainty about tariff policies.

When you ask what are their plans, I think those who have not yet realized the seriousness of the situation need to be prepared, because this economic policy adjustment needs to be carried out quickly. If you pay attention to traditional media, you will find two completely different voices: on the one hand, some people think it is a disaster and scare many people; on the other hand, there are also people who think this is the right direction and even firmly believe that we dont care about stock market fluctuations because we are fighting an economic war and we must fight for what we want.

Tariff Overview and Negotiations

Jordi Visser: First, we need to recognize that the current debt level in the United States is very high. This year, $9 trillion of debt will mature and need to be refinanced. At the same time, the federal budget deficit is expected to increase by $1.8 to $2 trillion, which means that we need to issue more bonds to fill the funding gap. Ray Dalio once pointed out that this ever-expanding debt burden will form a death spiral that will lead to a serious economic crisis if no quick action is taken. His suggestion is that the government needs to use a combination of measures to deal with it.

At the moment, tariffs are one of the means. Tariffs are actually a disguised tax to transfer money from the private sector to the public sector to ease debt pressure. In addition, the government is trying to improve the debt situation through fiscal austerity, and it is also balancing the economy through stimulus policies such as tax cuts. So I think the Trump administration does have an overall plan. Although we can discuss whether this plan is properly implemented, it does exist.

Anthony Pompliano:

I think one thing that people dont quite understand is that our deficit is getting bigger every year. It used to be a trillion dollars a year, then it got to $1.5 trillion, and now its about $2 trillion. The latest numbers say its probably as high as $2.75 trillion, and it keeps getting bigger. As you said, weve got a huge debt number that needs to be refinanced constantly. In laymans terms, its like paying off your first credit card with a second credit card with a higher limit. Every time you do that, you need to find a creditor willing to give you a higher limit.

As a government, they realize that this is a big problem and need to solve it. Just like taking over a troubled company, the government needs to overhaul the status quo: keep good policies, eliminate inefficient projects, cut unnecessary spending, and collect more taxes from the public customers.

Tariff policy is part of this reform. Many people see tariffs as a way for the government to increase tax revenue, but others believe that it is more like a game between leaders of other countries. For example, Ontario, Canada, imposes a 25% tariff on electricity, while the United States imposes a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum; Europe imposes a 50% tax on American whiskey, while the United States imposes a 200% tax on wine and spirits. Are these tariffs intended to increase revenue or are they a negotiating strategy?

Jordi Visser:

There is no doubt that tariffs are both an actual taxation tool and a negotiating tool. Trump explicitly implemented tariffs during his first term and called himself the tariff president. Tariffs are real and unavoidable.

When you say the stock market is down because of tariffs, I think people have to realize that a lot of these tariffs are about trade reciprocity. Youre going to put tariffs on our cars, why cant we put tariffs on your cars? In this way, the administration is trying to rebalance the trade relationship while bringing some money back home to improve the fiscal situation.

Trumps negotiating style can be traced back to his book The Art of the Deal. He is good at achieving his goals by applying pressure and using leverage. For example, when the United States announced a 200% tariff on wine, the news itself would trigger a market reaction. This is a negotiating tactic designed to force the other party to make concessions.

I think there is a bigger plan here, probably related to tax cuts and avoiding a government shutdown, and he is trying to put pressure on everyone. As Ray Dalio said, the government has to act fast, especially with the current debt and deficits growing. Tariffs will indeed increase consumer spending, but some of the money will flow to the government to help ease debt pressure.

But frankly, tariffs are a disguised form of tax increase, but they can also be seen as a wealth redistribution tool, by which more money is brought back into the country. This is one of the core goals of tariff policy, no doubt about it.

Tax proposals

Anthony Pompliano:

Regarding tax policy, criticism of Trump often focuses on his political rhetoric of only cutting taxes for the rich and helping his friends. However, it is surprising that people like Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump and Scott Bessent have proposed a goal: to exempt families with annual incomes below $150,000 from federal income taxes.

The data Ive seen so far is that there are currently about 130 million households in the United States, of which 85% to 90% have an annual income of less than $150,000. This means that about 110 million households may be completely exempt from federal income tax. If this policy is implemented, it will be one of the most transformative measures for ordinary families and the US economy. However, it also means that the federal governments revenue sources will be significantly affected. We can talk about these tax proposals, which are obviously not just for the rich, but also focus on middle- and low-income families.

Jordi Visser:

This is why I think we need to be vigilant when reading the news every day, because whether it is the left or the right, the media reports will be biased. From a neutral point of view, I dont think Trumps tax policy is simply to help the rich. In fact, his policy is more focused on the problem of wealth distribution in the country. He tries to solve this problem, but not by directly raising taxes on the rich, because this may have a negative impact on economic development.

From a consumption perspective, a large part of the US GDP is driven by the top 20% of the population. The consumption of these high-income earners already accounts for a major proportion of GDP, which in itself is a reflection of the imbalance in wealth distribution. Therefore, raising commodity prices through tariffs is actually a disguised way of increasing taxes on the rich.

So I think this income tax proposal is intended to solve the problem of wealth distribution in the country, but whether it can be realized in the end depends on how many factors develop.

In addition, the pressure of negotiations in the short term cannot be ignored. Tariff policy is currently more of a negotiating tool to gain more benefits in international trade. At the same time, the government is also trying to stimulate the economy and avoid a government shutdown by reducing taxes. On the one hand, promoting economic growth, on the other hand, supplementing fiscal revenue through tariffs and other means, this balance is the core goal of the current policy. Especially in the face of constant negative news, I think these measures are both to stabilize the stock market and to ease the publics anxiety about the economy.

Anthony Pompliano:

Whether its tariff policy, tax reform, economic policy, geopolitical negotiations, or even trying to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, these actions have a direct impact on the stock market. In the past three weeks, the stock market has fallen by about 10%. According to statistics, this may be the fifth fastest decline since 1950. However, I saw data published by Peter Maluk at Creative Planning that the average annual decline in the stock market over the past 75 years has been between 14% and 15%. So the question is, do we need to worry about this 10% decline? Or is this actually the norm in the stock market?

Jordi Visser:

I think this is a key point. In the past two weeks, market sentiment surveys have shown a significant decline in investor confidence. The initial sentiment fluctuations were mainly reflected in short-term trading, but now they have expanded to longer-term investor confidence indicators. Judging from the data, the current market sentiment is close to bear market territory.

Still, a 10% market correction isn’t uncommon. In fact, this one was the fastest since the pandemic, but it didn’t have a serious impact on the overall breadth of the market. As of last Tuesday, about 40% of the stocks in the SP 500 were still up for the year. In other words, the fundamentals of the market remain solid.

I think the more interesting question is whether the current economic conditions will trigger a recession. Generally speaking, a 20% to 30% market correction is often associated with a recession, and there are no signs that we are heading for one. If the government can quickly ease the rhetoric of the trade war, the market may rebound soon and investors will readjust their plans. But until then, many people choose to wait and see for the time being, which is one of the reasons for the low market sentiment.

Fear and recession

Anthony Pompliano:

Ive always felt that the more people talk about a recession, the less likely it is to happen. Do you think that when sentiment surveys show increased fear, the market may actually be close to a bottom? After all, if everyone is worried about future risks, are the markets already pricing in those expectations? What do you think?

Jordi Visser:

First, we can discuss this issue from the perspective of technology and cryptocurrency. In fact, if we look back at history, real economic recessions are often triggered by credit crises and debt problems. Take the 2008 financial crisis as an example. It was a systemic collapse caused by excessive credit expansion, and the government eventually had to take over a large amount of private sector debt and absorb it on its balance sheet.

If we look back to 1980, when the recession was more significant, manufacturing employment accounted for a third of the economy, and today that share has fallen to less than 10%. This means that the structure of employment has changed dramatically. The reason I mention employment is that a recession usually requires a credit crisis, and the private sector credit market is not large compared to the stock market. Therefore, the stock market must experience a significant decline in order to have a broader impact on the overall economy. However, most of the new jobs today are concentrated in the health care field, and most of these jobs are supported by the government, so they are less sensitive to the economic cycle. As you mentioned in the video this week, many jobs are actually related to the government, including contractors and so on.

Anthony Pompliano:

Government jobs accounted for 25% of the total in the past two years.

Jordi Visser:

Yes, thats a big percentage. Healthcare jobs are not cyclical. As the population ages, our need for nurses and other healthcare workers will only continue to grow. In the short term, unless AI robots emerge to replace humans, the need for these jobs will not decrease. Having three of my own four children working in healthcare has given me a firsthand understanding of the realities of this field.

Were having a different recession now than weve had in the past, both because of the credit issues and because of the changing nature of work. But when I talk about the private sector, I want to make sure that the audience watching understands that now might be a good time to look for future investment opportunities. For people who have been involved in the investment world, especially those who have been paying attention to cryptocurrency, this may be commonplace. But the stock market is not like that, so people are starting to worry about this whole recession issue.

To me, the definition of a recession is a loss of about 1.5% of employment, which means about 2.5 million people are out of work and won’t be able to find a job for a year or two.

Looking back at the global financial crisis in 2008, the unemployment rate soared to 10% and took a long time to drop to 4%.

Today, the main problem we face is labor shortage. Slowing population growth and tightening immigration policies have made the labor supply even tighter. Therefore, I do not think that the current economic conditions support a large-scale recession. In addition, the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology is significantly improving productivity, which will help companies maintain high profit margins.

So were actually in a very good position, and were likely to see growth around 1% for the next few quarters, and although we may see negative growth in the short term, I dont think were going to experience a systemic collapse like we saw in 2008.

Anthony Pompliano:

You mentioned the deleveraging of hedge funds, which seems to be an important market dynamic. Can you explain in more detail how and why this is happening?

Jordi Visser:

This phenomenon is indeed attracting more and more attention. If the situation is not improved, it may evolve into a bigger problem. I can share two related experiences.

I started my career in emerging markets. I was working at Morgan Stanley in the 1990s, and my first assignment was to take over the Mexico trading portfolio, two months before the Mexican financial crisis. It was a derivatives portfolio. Fortunately, my predecessor had hedged the risk very well.

Through this experience, I learned two important things: first, when debt is too large, the market can collapse very quickly; second, the root of many problems lies in the process of deleveraging, and the rapid release of leverage can exacerbate market turmoil. The collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) is a classic example, and I witnessed something similar during the emerging market crisis in Brazil.

I mentioned last week that I am concerned about AI-optimized risk management models. In fact, the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence has been around much earlier than most people think. Although ChatGPT made the public aware of the potential of AI, machine learning technology has long been widely used. Some large hedge funds invest more than $100 million each year to develop quantitative models and optimize hedging strategies, which gives them a huge advantage in risk management.

As AI becomes more prevalent, some new market dynamics are beginning to emerge. For example, momentum strategies have performed very well in recent years. This is partly because the popularity of technical tools has made it easy for individual investors to backtest strategies and build portfolios. This trend has made the market more dynamic, but it has also brought new risks.

In the current loose market environment, many funds running pairs trading or risk optimization strategies have performed poorly. This is an anomaly compared to the performance in the past six, seven, or even 13 years. I think this is related to the complexity of the global environment. For example, the escalation of the trade war, the possible dissolution of NATO, and the return of tariff policies to 19th century levels are new variables that cannot be predicted by historical data. Risk optimization models rely on historical correlations and volatility, so it is difficult to operate effectively in this environment. Many funds therefore choose to reduce their risk exposure, which in turn exacerbates the markets losses, forming a self-fulfilling cycle.

The current market differentiation is also very obvious. For example, in the SP 500 index, only about 200 stocks are rising, while about 300 stocks are falling. The stocks that fell are mostly related to artificial intelligence, while the stocks that rose are concentrated in the European or Chinese markets, which are often areas where investors have fewer positions. This deleveraging phenomenon occurs periodically, but the current situation is particularly prominent.

If this trend continues, it could further impact the credit markets. I would also like to single out the private debt market as another area of concern. Private equity funds have seen a significant decline in performance over the past five weeks, and their stock prices have also fallen sharply. Historical data shows that private equity stock prices are highly correlated with the private debt market, and we are already starting to see some signs of weakness. This could be another potential risk point that we need to keep a close eye on.

Anthony Pompliano: What happens to markets when everyone in the market is reducing risk at the same time? While it may seem safer individually, does this collective behavior create potential systemic risks?

Jordi Visser:

This is the heart of the matter. If the government is working to lower the 10-year Treasury rate, everyone is cheering that its a good thing that the rate has dropped from 4.80% to 4.25%. But at the same time, the stock market is back to where it was in September. In fact, the stock market has barely moved in the past six months. Six months ago, when the stock market was falling, the 10-year Treasury rate was 3.67%, and now its up to 4.25%. The rise in interest rates reflects the complexity of the market.

The government seems to be sending the message that we dont care about the stock market. I dont think this attitude is wise. Rather than exerting pressure through a trade war, it is better to resolve the tariff issue through negotiations. However, this negotiation approach may lead to further accumulation of market pressure. Based on the current signs, I think this pressure has begun to show, not only reflected in the approval rating, but also in the discussion on social media and policy debates. This collective risk reduction behavior is having a self-reinforcing negative impact on the market.

The market is at a critical juncture. The hedge fund community is generally focused on the upcoming April 2, which may mark a turning point in market sentiment. Now, many investors are waiting and no one is willing to take more risks before April 2. Because we don’t know what will happen in the future, especially economic data and corporate earnings may expose more vulnerabilities. As the earnings season arrives, we will gradually see the actual impact of consumers pausing spending.

Anthony Pompliano: Ive noticed that some companies have started to use tariffs as a scapegoat for their poor performance. Interestingly, these companies are blaming tariffs less than 60 days into the new administration, even though these policies had no correlation to their fourth quarter results. How do hedge funds assess the relationship between rhetoric and actual data in this situation?

Jordi Visser:

This is a good question. I think it can be viewed from two perspectives. First, the market value of the stock market is equivalent to 200% of GDP, which means that the stock market has a huge impact on the overall economic sentiment. However, both the consumer confidence index and the University of Michigan survey data show that the current sentiment indicators are far below expectations. An important reason behind this phenomenon is the uneven distribution of wealth.

The development of artificial intelligence is changing social mobility, especially the opportunities for upward mobility of the younger generation are decreasing. For example, my daughters have just graduated from college and they are working hard, but they find that even if their income increases after five years, it is not enough to live in a place like New York City. Instead, they choose areas with lower costs of living, such as Little Rock, Arkansas. I mention this to illustrate that the stock market and cryptocurrency are not just investment tools for many people, but also their hope.

When the stock market falls, such hopes are dampened. Data shows that vacation plans in the U.S. have been drastically reduced, PMI (Purchasing Managers Index) new orders have fallen sharply, and consumer spending has slowed significantly. The Atlanta Feds GDP forecast is currently hovering between 0% and 1%. This economic slowdown is not due to an impending recession, but because people are worried about the uncertainty of the future and reduce spending.

If the governments goal is to create better economic conditions, they may be working in that direction. However, the current challenge lies in the debt problem. The debt due in 2025 is as high as $9 trillion, most of which is short-term debt. Even if the 10-year Treasury bond rate falls, it will not help much to improve the debt situation if the Fed does not cut interest rates. Therefore, the market is currently on the sidelines, waiting for clearer signals.

Trump vs Powell

Anthony Pompliano: Trump often puts pressure on Fed Chairman Powell on social media to lower interest rates and push for rate cuts. Powells attitude is very clear. He insists: No, I will not cut interest rates. This even prompted reporters to ask questions such as If Trump asks you to resign, will you resign? Or does he have the right to fire you? Powells answer is no. This attitude can almost be described as confrontational. So the question is, is it really as simple as Trump and some economists say: forcing the Fed to cut interest rates by slowing the economy to an extreme? Or is it actually a complex game between the Federal Reserve and the executive branch?

Jordi Visser:

Bill Dudley wrote an opinion piece in Bloomberg this week discussing the dilemma of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is indeed watching for signs of slowing economic growth, but their main responsibility revolves around employment, and the current job market is still relatively strong. However, the issue of inflation puts them in a dilemma. According to the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) data released this week, this is the inflation indicator that the Federal Reserve focuses on, and its month-on-month growth exceeded 0.3%. If calculated on an annualized basis, the core PCE inflation rate is still over 3%. This means that the Fed must try to control inflation while trying to lower interest rates, which is a very tricky situation for them.

In terms of market expectations, inflation expectations for the next two years (observed through the interest rate swap market) have risen to over 3%. This expectation has continued to rise since Trump took office. Currently, the 10-year Treasury rate is below this level, while the 2-year Treasury rate is about 2.70%. At the same time, the yield on inflation-protected bonds (TIPS) is also close to 3%. This has led to a 30 basis point spread: two-year inflation expectations are higher than 10-year inflation. This phenomenon shows that the market is more concerned about inflation in the short term. Judging from the survey data, this divergence in expectations also reflects the political differences: Democrats generally believe that inflation will rise further, while Republicans believe that inflation will fall.

This divergence makes the Feds decision more complicated. Unless there is a significant change in the job market, Powell will face a huge challenge in dealing with the dual pressures of tax cuts and tariffs. Both policies will have an inflationary effect, and the Fed currently has no clear solution. Therefore, I think the Fed is still waiting and waiting for more data to guide its next move.

What is the actual inflation rate?

Anthony Pompliano: Talking about inflation data, I wrote some analysis recently. Right now the official data shows inflation at 3%, while the True Flation shows 2.8%. It should be noted that True Flation is an alternative inflation measure that is intended to reflect economic conditions in a more timely manner. While some people value it very much, others point out its limitations. Right now, the latest data for this measure is 1.35%. If the official data is 2.8% and True Flation is 2.6%, the two are basically the same. But when True Flation is 50% lower than the official data, and it was higher than the official data three months ago, it shows that it is not systematically underestimating inflation for a long time, but is more sensitive to real-time changes. For example, when the governments inflation rate is 2.93%, True Flation may show 3.1%.

Now, real inflation has suddenly dropped to 1.35%, which is a significant drop. Do you think that in the next two to four months, official inflation data will be below 2%? Is it possible that this is because there is a lag in government data and it does not fully reflect the latest inflation trends?

Jordi Visser:

Im also starting to support the data reflected in real inflation. At the end of last year and the beginning of this year, I was more inclined to think that inflationary pressures would continue, not entirely related to tariffs, but because of some other factors. But if oil prices fall to the mid-$60 a barrel, which is the bottom of its range, then lower oil prices will directly lead to lower prices at the gas pump, which is a more flexible area. However, expenses like auto insurance, home insurance, etc. have risen significantly. Those expenses may not go down, but I think we have entered a period of economic weakness, and I do think the economy will weaken further in the future.

I expect that current policies could reduce nominal GDP growth by about 100 basis points, which is currently about 5%. If nominal GDP falls back to 4%, it will be an important signal. In addition, Chinas CPI (Consumer Price Index) has just turned negative again, which may also have an impact on the global economy. Although the increase in tariffs will have a push-up effect on prices, this effect is a one-time effect. After the price increase caused by tariffs, there will not be a similar increase in the second year, so the effect will gradually fade. I dont think the market will overreact to this.

Thats why I dont think were going into a recession. I believe current policy will find a way to balance inflation. As a Bitcoin supporter, Im more concerned about the Mar-a-Lago Accords discussion. If you ask me where its going to end up, I think its going to be hard for us to find enough money to solve the fiscal deficit problem, especially based on the current policy path. In addition, other countries counterattacks on tariffs have made the problem more complicated. I think some of the content in the Mar-a-Lago Accords may be reasonable, which is very good for gold and Bitcoin. This is one of the reasons why gold prices are rising, because the market is beginning to realize that countries may solve the problem through some form of agreement rather than unilateral compromise.

Anthony Pompliano:

Yeah, I definitely dont think hes going to back down. He gives me that Titanic vibe where the captain says hes going to go down with the ship. I think we have a captain whos either going to go down with the ship or hes going to win with the ship.

Gold vs Bitcoin

Anthony Pompliano: Gold and Bitcoin are often compared, and their price drivers are usually very similar. Last year, we saw gold prices rise by 50%, while Bitcoin rose by 100%. I once described Bitcoin as gold with wings because it is more volatile and has higher rises. But in recent weeks, gold prices have continued to rise, while Bitcoin has fallen. What do you think of the recent divergence in the performance of these two assets?

Jordi Visser:

You call Bitcoin quasi-gold, which is very appropriate. If we regard Bitcoin as digital gold, its value drivers can be understood from two aspects. The price of gold is usually affected by the money supply, global liquidity growth, and geopolitical uncertainties (such as the risk of war). Gold is a safe-haven asset, and people will choose to deposit funds in gold to fight against uncertainty. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a certain correlation with the technology industry because it is essentially a technology-driven asset. Recently, the Trump administrations crackdown on technology stocks may also indirectly affect the performance of Bitcoin.

I am optimistic about the long-term prospects of Bitcoin. Even if the growth of money supply (M2) slows down, as long as economic efficiency and productivity remain high, Bitcoin will still have room to rise. Currently, the rapid growth of M2 is very favorable for gold because it reflects the markets concerns about inflation. The price of gold is reflecting a reconstruction of the global financial order, such as the uncertainty after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. This environment is a natural positive for gold.

Nevertheless, I think Bitcoin will outperform gold once the Nasdaq rebounds. Bitcoins price is more volatile and recently experienced a correction of about 30%, while the Nasdaq technology stocks fell by about 20%. When market sentiment improves, Bitcoin may rebound quickly and even outperform traditional assets.

However, to really see a sharp rise in Bitcoin and gold, we may need to wait for clearer policy signals, such as a resolution to the tariff issue. In addition, if the government admits that it needs to print money to resolve the current economic difficulties, this will further drive up the prices of both. Ray Dalio once advised investors to hold gold and Bitcoin, and this strategy seems particularly reasonable in the current environment.

Anthony Pompliano: Gold prices have reached all-time highs. Do you think $3,000 an ounce will be a psychological barrier? Just like the $100,000 mark that Bitcoin enthusiasts focus on, these round numbers tend to become the focus of the market. Does $3,000 have a psychological impact on golds trend, or is it just another number, like $2,000?

Jordi Visser:

I think $3,000 is just an ordinary number. In fact, central banks have been buying gold for some time. For many central banks, gold is a defensive asset, especially in the current global economic uncertainty. By accumulating gold, they can hedge against the risk of currency depreciation in the future.

Golds appeal is more concentrated on the older generation of investors, while the younger generation is more inclined to choose Bitcoin. For example, in countries such as Nigeria, Brazil and Argentina, young people are more willing to hold Bitcoin because it is more in line with their digital lifestyle. However, most of the funds in the current market are still in the hands of older investors in developed countries, and their demand for gold is still high.

My passion and belief about gold is that it is still an old peoples game. Young people are not playing it. Young people in Nigeria, Brazil or Argentina will have Bitcoin. The problem is that most of the money is still in these big countries, and the old people are currently in control, but they are just figuring out what the world is going to look like.

When we talk about the possible dissolution of NATO, it is a sign that the global system is undergoing profound changes. People buy gold because they are uncertain about the future global order. However, in the near future, Bitcoin may outperform gold. As the market gradually adapts to the new financial system, Bitcoin will show its unique advantages, while golds gains may gradually slow down.

Will stocks hit new all-time highs this year?

Anthony Pompliano: Do you think the stock market will hit new all-time highs before the end of the year?

Jordi Visser:

I think so. But it should be noted that after the market has experienced a 10% correction, it needs to rise by more than 10% to return to the previous high. Does this mean that only the tariff issue needs to be resolved, or there are clear policy signals after April 2, to drive the market rebound? Or must it rely on real quantitative easing (QE), such as interest rate cuts and money printing, to become the main driving force?

Honestly, I think both will play a role. I dont think there will be any decisive event on April 2 that will give the market more clarity. From my understanding of the reciprocal tax policy, it may take several months to negotiate and there will be a lot of uncertainty in the meantime.

One of the most serious factors affecting the stock market is the erratic tariff policy. I even think it may be a strategy. For example, when Scott Bessent mentioned no Trump protection, Trump made it clear that I will not compromise. This sends a signal: they dont care about short-term fluctuations in the stock market. In addition, he also pointed out that Chinas strategy is to focus on long-term planning for decades or even hundreds of years, while the United States often only focuses on quarterly performance, which is indeed true.

Anthony Pompliano:

This is a very sharp statement indeed. Although many people dont like him, it reveals a hard truth that Americans are reluctant to face: our short-term thinking is in stark contrast to Chinas long-term strategy. Moreover, I even feel that during his tenure, we didnt even think about the quarter. The medias focus is almost in hours. I know some media practitioners who have to get up very early every morning because Trump may have started to release important news at 6 oclock in the morning, and they need to follow up the report as soon as possible.

Relationships and uncertainty in the Trump administration

Anthony Pompliano: Have you seen some of the behind-the-scenes footage of Trump after he announced the 50% tariffs? I remember there was a documentary called The Art of the Search that chronicled his campaign and showed how he interacted with his team. There was a really interesting clip where he was sitting at his desk watching the debate speeches, and after hearing what was on TV, he turned to a woman who was known as the human printer because she carried a portable printer with her and printed out documents for him to read. He began dictating tweets to her, and the camera cut to her computer screen, and you could see what he was saying, including some random capital letters and repeated symbols. These tweets looked like he had written them himself, but they were actually edited and posted by members of his team to fit his style.

What surprised me was that tweets like 200% tariffs were actually selected and strategically considered, rather than randomly released. This reminds me that sometimes I dont think much before tweeting, and then I regret that I didnt use precise words. As president, Trump obviously doesnt just speak casually with his mobile phone. There must be support and planning behind this.

It also made me think, when we hear members of the administration like Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick speak, its impressive how cohesive they are. Despite the pressure they may face from friends and outsiders, they stick to their positions. If one of them objected or compromised, would the whole thing fall apart and the president lose the support of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Commerce?

Jordi Visser:

Thats a good question. Trump did go through a learning process when he first became president. He initially hired some people with strong personal opinions, which caused the team to get out of control. But now, the White Houses messaging has become more consistent, which is an improvement.

Last night I saw a report that some people in the White House believed that market fluctuations were beginning to have an impact on policy, and some even discussed whether it was too radical. However, less than an hour later, another message from outside the White House denied this statement. This contradiction in information can be viewed from two perspectives: on the one hand, the White House may not have really changed its strategy; on the other hand, it also shows that there are errors in the outside worlds interpretation of the policy.

This is actually a manifestation of the democratic system. When the stock market falls, the pressure from voters will be transmitted to congressmen and senators, which will in turn affect policymakers. I personally am not worried about a 10% correction in the stock market in the short term. It doesnt matter whether stocks return to historical highs in November or in May next year. I think corporate earnings are in good condition and the economy will not fall into a recession. But we must pay attention to the debt problem. The current debt-to-GDP ratio is already high. If there is another recession, we will not have enough policy space to respond, and we may even face the risk of failed Treasury auctions.

Anthony Pompliano: A friend of mine mentioned that the Biden administration has a slower pace of action, which makes the market seem calmer. Trump is the exact opposite, with his frequent tweets and quick decisions that fill the market with uncertainty. There is a lot of new information released every day, and this pace makes it feel like the market is moving faster than it actually is. I think this information bombardment itself may be a strategy.

The Trump administration is very proactive in its communication style. They release updates quickly, rather than remaining silent on external issues like some reactive managements. This efficient communication may increase short-term uncertainty, but it also allows people to be informed of policy changes in a timely manner.

Jordi Visser:

Officials like Scott Bessent appear on television almost every day, and the frequency of this information transmission is unprecedented. In contrast, Janet Yellen almost never speaks publicly on television. Although you may not agree with their policy direction, this ability to quickly adjust and communicate is indeed worthy of recognition.

I think that although the market may fluctuate by 10%-20% in the short term, it will not lead to a recession. The real risk is that if the market falls sharply and remains depressed for a long time, such as two years, it will cause a serious blow to the economy. But at present, this is unlikely to happen because companies have not laid off a large number of employees. We need to calm down and focus on the long-term trend instead of being distracted by short-term fluctuations.

But the only way that can actually happen is if companies start laying off people, and thats not going to happen. So everybody needs to slow down. They should watch your daily show because what you just said is a very nuanced way to make people aware of this. You cant read about this in the newspaper. They are trying to spread the word, which is very important when youre doing something this tricky.

In addition, we must face up to the debt problem. If the debt problem is not resolved, there may be a risk of failed treasury auctions in the future. When the market loses confidence, the only option is to continue printing money, which will only make the problem worse. Therefore, the current policy adjustment is very necessary.

This article is sourced from the internet: Buy Bitcoin or Gold? Wall Street tycoons interpret the market landscape under Trumps new policy

Related: Pre-sale revenue is as high as 5 times, can PAIN save the meme market?

NO PAINS, NO GAINS, LaoTouCoin is finally online! On February 11, the official Meme project PAIN posted on social media that 80% of the refund will be issued to eligible wallets before PAIN tokens start trading. PAIN will also be airdropped to eligible wallets. The project will publish the official contract and token economic model on X and the Internet. There will be no claim link. In the early hours of this morning, 80% of the 185,976 SOLs raised by PAIN have been successfully refunded, and all funds sent after block 318346069 (the end of PAINSALES) have also been refunded. According to community members, PAIN refunded 80% before the opening, and currently has a nearly 4-fold return, that is, if you invest 100 SOL, you will get 80 SOL back,…