At the end of the year, significant changes are occurring in the financial market — the Fed has initiated a large-scale liquidity injection to urgently replenish funds to the banking system. The official stance remains steady, claiming this is a routine year-end operation meant to address peak funding demands and maintain stability in the banking system, and is by no means quantitative easing.

But what is hidden behind this set of rhetoric?

The core tool of this operation is the "repurchase agreement." The logic is simple: the Fed provides cash to banks using government bonds as collateral, allowing banks to gain liquidity to get through the year-end. A few days later, the Fed "repurchases" the government bonds, reclaiming cash. On the surface, it appears to be a temporary emergency measure, but it actually implies deeper issues.

Upgrading from a standard quota of 40 billion USD per month to active intervention has long exceeded the boundaries of "conventional operations." This does not resemble a contingency plan; it feels more like an emergency.

Three signals worth paying attention to:

Firstly, the banks' liquidity is tighter than the surface data suggests. It's normal to lack liquidity at the end of the year, but the need for the central bank to directly intervene to provide support indicates that deeper pressures are already emerging.

Secondly, the aftereffects of quantitative tightening are becoming apparent. Long-term draining has led to a decrease in the vitality of the financial pool, and the system's resilience is declining.

Thirdly, the traditional financial system's reliance on central bank intervention is beyond expectations. A surge in year-end funding demand triggered an emergency response, reflecting the fragility of this system—it is not an organically self-regulating system but rather a device that heavily depends on manual maintenance.

What do these signals mean for the cryptocurrency market? When the traditional financial system requires frequent lifelines from the central bank, the value support of stablecoins—along with the risk premium of the entire market—deserves to be reassessed.