New US Treasury Rule: Federal Reserve Regional Presidents Must Have Lived in the Area for Three Years Before Taking Office?

Question

[Crypto World] U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent has recently put forward a new proposal—the heads of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks must have lived in their respective jurisdictions for at least three years before taking office.

This sounds down-to-earth, but in practice, it could stir up quite a bit of controversy. On Wednesday, Bessent made it clear that if a candidate hasn’t met the three-year residency requirement in the future, the Federal Reserve Board in Washington can exercise a direct veto. In his own words: “The Chair and the Board have the final say on the selection of regional bank board members, so unless they’ve lived in the district for three years, we will exercise our veto power.”

The logic behind this proposal is actually easy to understand—it’s about making sure those in charge of money matters have a better grasp of the local economic realities. But from another perspective, it could restrict talent mobility and add uncertainty to future Fed personnel arrangements. For the market, any shift in the Federal Reserve’s internal dynamics is worth watching, as even the slightest tweak in monetary policy can impact liquidity and risk appetite.

ShitcoinArbitrageur · Accepted Answer

Another personnel change? The Fed is really playing chess here.

You have to live somewhere for three years before you can take office—this threshold... feels like they're blocking talent mobility.

Bessent's move is pretty ruthless, holding veto power directly, with undeniable influence.

But looking at it from another angle, this does ensure that local leaders understand the local economy better. Still, the political maneuvering is just too obvious.

If talent is stuck in one place for three years, how can the market develop healthily? I really don't get it.

Is this protecting local interests or just balancing power?

Every time there’s a personnel adjustment, the capital markets have to tremble along with it. Retail investors like us are just waiting to get squeezed.

Feels like with this rule change, the Fed's decision-making flexibility will take a big hit.

DefiPlaybook · Answer

Another round of personnel appointments and removals—just the Fed’s internal power games. It doesn’t really have any direct impact on our on-chain liquidity mining.

With this rule in place, those Wall Street elites will definitely have to take a detour. It’s just as tedious as the governance token allocation mechanisms of certain protocols.

What really matters is how monetary policy will be adjusted going forward—that’s the real key to affecting liquidity. This is just surface-level stuff.

The Fed is looking more and more like DAO governance—all political maneuvering, nothing interesting.

The three-year restriction is pretty strict. Feels like they’re trying to prevent too many outsiders from parachuting in, but if talent mobility gets blocked, who’s really losing out?

WenAirdrop · Answer

Damn, what’s going on here? The Fed requires a three-year residency before taking office. Feels like they’re using administrative measures to forcibly reduce liquidity.

HashRateHustler · Answer

At it again? It takes three years to take office—feels like they're guarding against something.

MetaverseMortgage · Answer

This three-year restriction is meant to lock in talent. I'm really speechless.