The Fed has done it yet again. President Biden and Jerome Powell have been teaming up and tag teaming the markets ever since Biden took power. Since Biden has taken office, we've seen gas prices rise to record levels. Inflation is at its highest point in decades. We're on the brink of World War III and now the Federal Reserve is getting ready to dump its assets and balance sheets back on the market. All while also increasing the interest rates. So I honestly don't know where we go from here, but what I can tell you that it doesn't look pretty. We are literally on the path for destruction and chaos. Last time that the Fed was this hawkish and dumped its balance sheet on the market was back in 2018. And I'm sure you remember how bad the markets were back then.  So just imagine how it could be with Biden. Today we're going to be talking about exactly what the situation is that we're facing here now with the Fed and how their decisions can critically impact the markets going forward. So let's go ahead and dive right into today's video. Hey, what's up Jay here and welcome to Bitcoin Daily bringing you guys the best tips, tutorials and ideas to help you guys become profitable and successful investors. The goal of this channel is to empower you, the community with the knowledge and resources to help you get to that next level. So if you guys are new to the channel, don't forget to subscribe, turn on notifications and smash that like button. If you have any questions about anything we covered here today, drop it in the comments. Let's dive into today's video. So for today's video, we will be looking at this thread made by Adam Cochran. I hope I'm saying his name right. He breaks, he breaks this down beautifully into that he breaks this down beautifully into very simple terms. And there's no way that I could have broke it down this simply. So we will be using his thread for this video. I recommend you guys to definitely give him a follow. So he made this thread after the FOMC minutes on Wednesday. And he breaks down exactly what it meant and why the markets have been reacting so bearishly ever since. So the main thing here is that one of the forms of measures that the Fed can do is raise rates in order to curb inflation. However, part of the problem of the inflation that's currently going on right now stems directly from the involvement of the Fed in the market, which is called quantitative easing, which basically means that the Fed buys assets from the market.  So after quantitative easing for a number of years, now you have to basically back out of it. And that's called quantitative tightening. So there are two ways that the Fed can go about this. The first one is the less aggressive approach, which is to simply let the assets roll off its balance sheet. Essentially, this is choosing to not reinvest when an asset meets its maturity date. So for example, if you had a bond in which you had your money locked away in for a year, at the end of that year, you're not reinvesting your profits into it, you're taking your money out. Now, the second way to do this and the more aggressive approach is to sell off your assets into the markets. So yes, this gets the balance sheet normalized a lot quicker, but however, it drives down the prices of other assets. So in crypto terms, this is like having your funds invested in a pool or farming. And in the first scenario, all you're really doing is when you get your rewards, you're just claiming them and cashing out. You're not buying anymore. However, in the second scenario, you're selling your positions in these pools and farms at market price. And this is billions of dollars. So why are they doing this? Well, they've been so slow to react to the growing inflation that at this point, they're getting to basically the point where they don't have much other choice. This all, of course, started back in 2020 with the pandemic where they just printed tons and tons of money and they just been behind the curve ever since. We've really only had to deal with quantitative tightening in modern markets once, which was back in 2017, which was the result of the quantitative easing in 2013 and 2014. Look at this. During that time, the Fed had a balance sheet of around $4.5 trillion. Keep that number in mind because it's very important. Now, to start the quantitative tightening, the Fed slowly began to roll off bonds at $6 billion per month to a cap of $30 billion for bonds and $4 billion per month to a cap of $20 billion for MBS or mortgage backed securities. So this had a peak rate of around $50 billion per month. Plus on top of that, they had 25 basis point hikes or 0.25%. So only a year into that process in 2019, the Fed had to stop their quantitative tightening plans due to overly negative impacts on the market. The quantitative tightening was a major factor in our 2018 recession. And if you look at what happened during 2018 in the crypto market, it was not pretty. So where does this put us now? Currently, the Fed sits on $9 trillion in assets, which is roughly 36% of the US GDP, more than double of what we saw last time. They are targeting reductions in May looking at a runoff of $95 billion per month. So again, basically double what they were doing in 2018. And another thing that they mentioned was that the Fed was already considering 50 basis point hikes last time but held off due to the war in Ukraine, which would have been doubled what they actually did. This means that it is almost certain that we should expect a 50 basis points rate hikes moving forward each meeting. Last time in 2018 when we had the quantitative tightening, it was only 25 basis points. So we're literally doubling that number as well as doubling the amount of money that they're going to be dumping off in the markets. And then the Fed also said that it will be appropriate to consider MBS sales, mortgaged back security sales. That is a bold and hawkish statement. It's something that we've never seen as part of quantitative tightening and it was something a lot of the street was shrugging off. So now we may be facing not only the large hikes, but also balance sheet runoffs and mortgage back security sales. So all of those options are now on the table and being discussed. And as inflation continues to run really, really hot, they might all just become an inevitability. The other point is that this particular Fed in this overly political climate has been so cautious and understated. They always downplay the challenges here and are behind the curve on their actions and even more behind on the curve when it comes to their words. So for them to be looking at a 50 basis point hikes, double paced runoffs and discussing MBS sales means that there aren't any other options. Adam even believes that he would not be surprised if in the next FOMC meeting, we see these pushed to even more aggressive levels.  If we know how bad something is going to be, then someone out there is going to take the longtime horizon gamble to buy and price it in. But if we have no idea, that's when things get risky, that's when things get nasty, that's when things get ugly. In only our second quantitative tightening case, we're looking at a pace that we've never seen before along with rate hikes at paces we've never seen before and possibly MBS sales, which we've not done before in quantitative tightening. That is a lot of uncertainty. The market is both concerned and confused. So looking at the chart here in Bitcoin, you can see that after two green weeks, we've had what is going to be now two red weeks. Remember on Monday's video, we spoke about we're currently on this trend right here. So as long as we're able to hold above this line right here, which is basically at that $40,000 level, we're still in an uptrend and we're still good. However, if we do break below that, then we could probably see Bitcoin test the same levels that it tested back here. And at that point, of course, it puts us at risk of testing this next Fibonacci level, which is the levels that we tested back last year in May, June, July. So are we looking to possibly retest these same levels in May, June, July of this year? I hope not, but it looks like it could be a possibility, depending what happens going forward with the Fed and what they do to try to combat inflation. Remember that by combating inflation, what they're doing is making the dollar overall stronger. So usually when Bitcoin has red days, if you look at the dollar, you'll notice that the dollar is going up. And if you can look at this pattern right here, you can see that the dollar just kind of broke out of this consolidation range that it was in, that it was in since back in March. So that could be pointing to a continuation to the upside, which would probably mean not just for Bitcoin, but for the overall markets for them to fall down lower to the downside. If you guys are looking for buy and sell signals, if you're trying to know which way you should be going, if you're trying to figure out which way the trend is currently, we recently put up this 24 hour live channel with buy and sell signals on Ethereum and Bitcoin. You can see that the signals have been pretty much killing it so far, hitting at a rate of 75% success. Now, if you guys want to know exactly what trades I'm taking, what decisions I'm making in real time, then you must join my trading mentorship program. In this group, I share every single trade that I take with my complete trading plan, entry, stop loss, take profit, all of it. I teach you guys how to trade using leverage to maximize your capital. I teach you how to use the correct position sizing and risk levels for your capital so that you guys never have to worry about blowing up your account again. In addition to that, I also post passive income opportunities. I post NFT projects, play to earn opportunities and much, much more. Now, there are limited spots for this group because there's so many people that are trying to get in, but there's only so much time and so many people that I can work with at one time. So, if you guys are interested, make sure to click the link in the description below.  I went from a broke failed artist to a regular 9 to 5 working job to retiring in 2017 because of crypto. It changed my life and I know it can change yours as well, but these opportunities will not last forever. So, please, if you're interested in joining the trading mentorship group, sign up in the link in the description below. If not, then I strongly suggest that you check out the next two videos that come up on the screen because those are the videos that YouTube thinks that you should watch next. Thank you so much for watching, guys. I will catch you on the next one. As always, peace and love.


Staff Sergeant Jeff Cochran received his instructor tab in the Marine Corps Martial Arts program in 2009. It's my responsibility to go out there and teach these techniques to the Marines. It makes no sense for me to hold all this information and not be able to provide that out to the Marines. Cochran and his fellow instructor taught basic martial arts skills to the Washier District Governor's personal security detachment. The two Afghan uniformed policemen were taught the basic warrior stance, different punches and counters, and other entry-level skills. I can protect myself also to protect the people of my country and the governor. Despite the language barrier, the Marines and police worked together to ensure the basic skills were covered. Reporting from Camp Leatherneck, Helmand Province, I'm Corporal Meredith Brown.


Write the correct formula equation complete ionic equation and that ionic equation For the reaction between cobalt 2 fluoride and sodium hydroxide. Okay, so cobalt 2 fluoride You could put this as solid or aqueous, right? But eventually you're going to want it to be aqueous. So sometimes on those problems you might see it as solid You got to remember that will be Plus what do we say sodium hydroxide? Sodium hydroxide goes to, well So this is where you've got to know what it's going to go to So how do I know that? Does anybody know what the products would be? What kind of reaction is this going to be? Double displacement reaction. So what do they do? They do the do-shido, they switch parts, right? So what is going to be the react, the product? So sodium chloride and cobalt hydroxide. Yes Okay, so CO But what's the oxidation state of cobalt? 2. And what's the charge on hydroxide? Negative 1. So what do we have to have? Cobalt That right? Okay. Is this insoluble this thing? You guys know? It's insoluble. Hydroxides, okay? Those things with oxygen are a lot of times insoluble. Okay, so And then the other way you know is sodium chloride, soluble or insoluble? It's not the sodium chloride Okay, so is this equation balanced? No, so we're going to have to balance it, right? Balance, balance, right? Okay, so they call that, in this case they call it the formula equation. You might hear it the molecular equation I often call it that. So we'll just call it the formula equation just to give it a different name today. Okay, so the next thing we've got to do is the what? The total ionic equation, right? So anything that has aqueous, break it up. The sub-script goes in front talking about both the sodium and the hydroxide, of course. This thing stays, what are we going to do now? Cancel our spectators, yes, very good. So tell me, I'm going to put my hand underneath and you say yes if it's a spectator, okay? Or no if it's not. Why do you say those ones? They're on both sides, both sides of the equation. And of course the ratio. So now what do we do? Total are the, this is the actual reaction that's going on in this thing?  Everybody okay with that one? Do we have to write spectators down? It just asks, you know, I mean in most of the ones that I posted on there I like to ask it because you might as well ask it. How did I know, well, all of these ones are double displacements when you're forming a precipitate. I mean, so what did it say in this one? It says this one didn't necessarily say it, but you should know that when you react cobalt chloride and sodium hydroxide that's going to form a precipitate. Because cobalt hydroxide is insoluble and you know your solubility. Okay, so these are all whenever you see these solubilities, this is what they're pushing on you. Any other questions on this one? Pardon? Yes, solid, solid, solid, solid. Yes, put solid. Any other questions? Quick, quick, quick.


I welcome members to the 11th meeting in 2016 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As always, I ask members to switch off mobile phones, please. A generating one is the Land Reform Scotland Bill. This item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers provisions in the bill as amended at stage 2. Section 89A was added to the bill at stage 2. This adds a new section 32B into the Agricultural Holding Scotland Act 1991, the 1991 Act. New sections of 32B provides that the Scottish ministers may by regulations make further provision about individuals who are new entrants to who are progressing in farming. This power is subject to the negative procedure. Part 10 of the bill as amended creates a new process whereby tenants of 1991 act tenants may assign their tenants to new entrants or those who are progressing in farming in circumstances where the landlord does not wish to accept the tenants' notice of attention to relinquish the 1991 act tenancy. The new process for relinquishment could impact upon the rights and duties of parties to existing 1991 act, which is in a significant way. The definition of the group of persons who are new entrants to or are progressing in farming for the purposes of the new process is accordingly fundamental to the scope and application of the new process in practice. The committee may accordingly wish to draw this power to the attention of the Parliament on the basis that the affirmative procedure would appear to represent a more appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny given the significance of this power and its centrality to the new scheme of relinquishment of 1991 act tenancies. Does the committee wish to draw the power in the new section 32B of the 1991 act as inserted by section 89 of the bill to the attention of the Parliament on the basis that the power could be more appropriately subject to the affirmative procedure? Does the committee agree to report that it is content with the remaining delegative powers provisions and the procedure to which they are subject in the bill? I am led to believe that Jim Hulme lodged an amendment in this regard that seeks to ensure that the affirmative procedure is in vogue. I think that, as a committee, there should be supportive or indeed support this amendment. Essentially, both mean the same things. I think that it is quite proper that the committee makes comment broadly in the terms that John Scott suggests, but I would be as well to indicate that I shall listen to the minister's response to that amendment before concluding how, as an individual MSP, we will treat that amendment when it comes before Parliament at stage 3. Yes, I agree with both the comments, especially Stewart's comment that we might have considered lodging amendment ourselves if one had not been lodged previously and I would have been happy with that. Therefore, in principle, I would support the amendment. However, as always, one wants to listen to the arguments on both sides. Given the guidance that we have, I think that it is changing from a negative to an affirmative procedure and being mindful that, if an amendment has not been lodged, we would be quite likely to put forward our own amendment. I think that it would be supportive of the amendment that is lodged, and I would hope that the committee would be supportive of that, too. I agree with it that, yes, we have put on record clearly that we think that it should be an affirmative, but I concur with the general view that we want to see what the Government minister has to say at the time before deciding which way to vote on the basis that it is only at that point that we have the full argument. However, I think that the committee has quite clearly laid down its view, which is, I think, unanimously that it should be affirmative as we currently see it. Members are content with that, thank you very much. On that basis, I move forward to agenda item 2, which is the Land Reform Scotland bill. Again, the item is for the committee to consider correspondence received from the Scottish Government on expected amendments to part 3 of this bill. The committee, at its meeting on 8 March, agreed to write to the Scottish Government on unexpected delegated power to create a public register of information about people who have a controlling interest in land. The Scottish Government indicated, identified that delegated power would be subject to an enhanced form of affirmative procedure the first time the power is used. The committee wrote expressing concern and suggesting the enhanced affirmative procedure should be used every time unless subsequent regulations could be limited to minor amendments. The minister has confirmed that an enhanced affirmative procedure would apply to the power only the first time it is used, and subsequent uses would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Do members have any comments? I welcome this important change of heart by the minister, if I have understood it correctly. I am pleased to see that subsequent uses thereafter will be subject to the affirmative principle. The committee may wish to note that the Scottish Government brought forward amendments to make this power subject to an enhanced affirmative procedure in light of the committee's efforts and concerns. The committee may also wish to note that the enhanced affirmative procedure will only apply to the first exercise, and there is no requirement for this procedure to be used in subsequent exercises of the power. However, there is a provision made for consultation to be carried out on future uses of the power, and subsequent exercises will also be subject to the affirmative procedure, as John Scott has just indicated. However, that does represent a reduced level of scrutiny for future exercises of the power, and according to the committee, we would expect that such future uses would be focused on minor and technical amendments and not significantly alter the policy set out in the original regulations. Does the committee agree that I should reiterate those remarks on behalf of the committee? In the context of the debate on those amendments, is the committee otherwise content to note those amendments? Thank you. Does the committee agree to consider the stage 3 amendments to the delegative power in section 36 of the bill at its meeting on Tuesday? Thank you. Agender item 3 is instrument subject to negative procedure, and no points have been raised by illegal advisers on the prisons and young offenders institutions, Scotland amendment rules 2016, SSI 2016-131. Is the committee content with that instrument, please? Agender item 4 is instrument not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and again, no points have been raised by illegal advisers on the act of a journal criminal procedure rules 1996 amendment number 2, serious crime prevention orders 2016, SSI 2016-137. Is the committee content with this instrument, please? Agender item 5 is the private housing tenancies Scotland bill. The item is for the committee to consider the Scottish Government's correspondence on the delegated power in section 32 of the bill, allowing the Scottish Minister to designate a rent pressure zone. At our meeting on 8 March, the committee agreed that I would write to the Scottish Government on its behalf to outline its recommendation that the power should be subject to the provisional affirmative procedure after a rent pressure zone has been designated rather than the negative procedure. The committee also agreed that pending the response from the Scottish Government convener could lodge an amendment to fill this recommendation. The Minister for Housing and Welfare has written to the committee today. The minister has indicated that she proposes to lodge an amendment at stage 3 so that section 30 of the bill is subject to the affirmative procedure for all regulations made under it. In light of this response, is the committee content with the proposed amendment to section 30 of the bill at stage 3? I think that we have made substantial progress on this, and I very much welcome the fact that the Government has lifted the idea of it being a negative procedure and welcome what is happening. I would just endorse everything that Stuart Stevenson has said, and I welcome the Government taking this action, which is the one that we sought and very grateful that they have. Clearly the committee is content with what is now being proposed. I thank you very much for that, and I can close the meeting.