#特朗普加密货币政策新方向 Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman recently issued a warning: the current U.S. government is systematically dismantling the regulatory framework established after the 2008 financial crisis. This practice is pushing the market to the brink of danger.

From the perspective of specific policy trends, the issue has become quite apparent. Fed insider Bowman is pushing to lower bank capital reserve requirements — this means that financial institutions can take on larger risk exposures with less "cushion." History tends to repeat itself: just before the 2008 crisis, the banking sector relied on similar leverage operations, ultimately leading to systemic collapse. When the buffer mechanisms are weakened, the vulnerability of the entire system will be immediately exposed once a black swan event occurs.

What is even more concerning is the regulatory vacuum in the cryptocurrency sector. The so-called GENIUS Act attempts to give the green light to stablecoins, but the transparency and reserve authenticity of assets like Tether remain questionable. Krugman bluntly pointed out that this lack of regulation in the issuance model of digital currencies is essentially no different from the rampant issuance of currency by private banks in the 19th century. $BTC $ETH Once a major stablecoin faces a crisis of trust, the ripple effects could impact the entire cryptocurrency market and even the traditional financial system.

"They are actively removing the circuit breaker mechanisms from the financial system." Krugman's judgment is not alarmist. The lessons of 2008 are profound enough—when regulators choose to "handle flexibly," market participants will push risks to the limit. Now, removing these safeguards one by one is equivalent to betting on probabilities: betting that nothing will go wrong in the short term.

Behind this is a classic trade-off of interests: financial institutions gain greater profit margins at the cost of the entire system's resilience being hollowed out. But the problem is that history has already provided an answer — in an unrestrained game of capital, the ones who ultimately pay the price are never the instigators.

So the question now is: is this a misjudgment of risk, or a conscious choice to ignore the consequences? Market participants need to make their own judgments.