DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 2

Nasdaq Posts Strongest Month Since Pandemic As AI Spending Frenzy Reignites Tech Rally

0

The tech-heavy NASDAQ Composite staged its most powerful monthly rally since the early days of the Covid pandemic, surging 15.29% in April as investor confidence returned to artificial intelligence-linked technology companies after a turbulent start to 2026.

The rebound marks a dramatic reversal for a sector that entered the year under pressure from concerns about stretched valuations, slowing enterprise software demand, and fears that rapid advances in AI could destabilize existing business models. By the end of March, the Nasdaq was still down roughly 7% for the year. One month later, it had swung back into positive territory, now up about 7% year-to-date.

The rally was largely driven by renewed conviction that the AI investment cycle remains far stronger and more durable than many investors had feared earlier this year. Earnings from major technology companies reinforced that narrative. Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft all exceeded expectations on revenue and cloud growth, easing concerns that corporate AI spending might be slowing after a period of unprecedented capital expenditure.

Alphabet rose 10% following earnings and finished April up 34%, marking its strongest monthly performance since 2004, the year the company went public. The scale of the gain underscores how aggressively investors are rewarding firms viewed as central beneficiaries of the AI economy, particularly those with dominant cloud and advertising ecosystems capable of monetizing generative AI tools at scale.

Amazon climbed 27% during the month as investors responded positively to continued acceleration in Amazon Web Services growth and management’s commitment to expanding AI infrastructure. Microsoft also benefited from sustained demand for cloud computing and enterprise AI services, cementing the view that hyperscalers remain the backbone of the global AI buildout.

Even where investor reactions were mixed, the underlying theme remained intact. Meta fell sharply after announcing a fresh increase in capital expenditure, but still ended the month nearly 7% higher. The reaction underlines growing investor sensitivity to the enormous cost of building AI infrastructure, particularly data centers, networking systems, and custom silicon.

That tension is becoming one of the defining features of the current market cycle. Investors remain enthusiastic about AI-driven growth, but are increasingly scrutinizing whether the billions being poured into infrastructure will translate into sustainable profit expansion.

The strongest gains were concentrated in semiconductors, where the AI boom continues to strain global supply chains and drive demand for advanced computing hardware.

Advanced Micro Devices surged 74% in April, while Micron Technology jumped 53% as investors bet that demand for memory and AI accelerators will remain elevated for years. Broadcom gained 35%, benefiting from its exposure to networking infrastructure essential for hyperscale AI clusters.

Nvidia, whose chips remain the foundation of most advanced AI systems, rose about 14%, its best month since June. While smaller than some peers’ gains, Nvidia’s rally is significant given its already enormous market value and dominant role in the AI ecosystem.

Perhaps the most striking move came from Intel, whose shares doubled in April, marking the strongest month in the company’s 55-year history. The rally suggests investors are reassessing Intel’s position amid efforts to rebuild its manufacturing capabilities and participate more aggressively in AI-related chip production after years of falling behind rivals.

The rebound in chip stocks also underpins a structural shift underway in technology markets. Earlier waves of digital transformation were driven largely by software. The current AI cycle is increasingly hardware-intensive, requiring massive investments in processors, memory, networking equipment, and energy infrastructure.

That shift is reshaping capital allocation across the industry. Major cloud providers are committing hundreds of billions of dollars toward AI infrastructure, while semiconductor companies are racing to expand production capacity amid persistent supply shortages.

The rally also comes against a backdrop of growing geopolitical tension and rising energy costs linked to the ongoing conflict involving Iran. Higher oil prices have injected inflation concerns back into markets, yet investors appear willing, for now, to look past macroeconomic risks in favor of AI-driven earnings momentum.

Still, questions remain about sustainability. Valuations across parts of the tech sector have returned to elevated levels, and the sharp rise in capital expenditure by major firms has revived debate about whether the industry may eventually face diminishing returns on AI spending.

Flush Casino vs Moonbet: 20% Rakeback & No KYC Crypto Casino

0

Author: Harvey Carter (iGaming Analyst) | Reviewed by William Burns

A few months back, our team was chasing rakeback on a platform that had been running a rewards promotion for weeks. James had stacked up a solid balance in the VIP reward pool.

Then the casino went into a “site update.” Rewards were paused. Support said everything would be restored once the new version launched. Weeks turned into months. When the update finally dropped, the casino called those rewards a bug. Gone.

That experience pushed James and Wollie to test two of the most talked-about crypto casinos for rakeback transparency and KYC policies: Flush Casino and Moonbet. According to the American Gaming Association, US commercial gaming revenue hit a record $66.5 billion in 2023, with crypto casinos capturing a growing share of that volume.

Players are choosing platforms based on reward transparency more than ever. We deposited on both at the same time, played the same game types, and tracked how rakeback was returned, how withdrawals were processed, and whether KYC was triggered without warning. Here is what we found.

Our First Sessions: Flush Casino vs Moonbet

Getting Started on Flush

James signed up at Flush Casino and was automatically enrolled in the VIP program. After the Fall 2025 revamp, the platform pays rakeback every 30 minutes with daily, weekly, and monthly reward layers on top. The dashboard loaded. The points balance was there. His rakeback rate was not.

Getting Started on Moonbet

Moonbet was the opposite from the first login. Wollie opened his Moondrop dashboard and saw his Moonrake rate displayed immediately: 20% at the Contender entry tier, calculated as 0.25 times the house edge times each wager. He knew exactly what he was earning before placing a single bet.

Rakeback: How Each Platform Returns Value on Every Bet

Rakeback is the metric that separates a casino worth grinding from one that quietly takes your volume without giving anything back.

What We Earned on Flush Casino

Flush Casino offers a VIP-based rakeback system. After its Fall 2025 revamp, the platform pays rakeback every 30 minutes with daily, weekly, and monthly bonus layers on top. The problem James ran into was visibility.

The cashback starting rate is cited across review sources as 5%, but the dashboard showed a point-accumulation figure tied to the loyalty tier rather than a clear cash percentage. He earned 10 points per dollar on slots and 5 per dollar on live blackjack, but converting that into an actual cash rate required digging through the help section.

By week two, a small credit was applied to his balance. The amount was real. The rate behind it was not clear from day one.

The bigger complaint pattern our team found was around the VIP rewards blackout. Multiple Trustpilot reviews described a period where Flush blocked all VIP rewards for months, citing a platform update. When the new site launched, the casino told players that the accrued rewards were a “bug” and would not be paid out.

Reviewer Feras left a 1-star rating, stating the casino “became the worst” after the upgrade, citing “super slow slots, no actual promotion, super low RTP.”

Janick stated their deposit bonuses are only banners and they will never be credited to your account. That is a reward system failure that went unresolved for half a year.

What We Earned on Moonbet

Moonbet’s approach is the opposite. The moment Wollie logged in, the MOONDROP dashboard showed his Moonrake rate clearly: 20% at the Contender entry tier. The formula is published: 0.25 times the house edge times each wager, paid as real rakeback on every bet with no point conversion needed.

“This transparent formula has been independently tested against Stake’s VIP system and Jackbit’s tiered rakeback, where Moonbet’s immediate 20% rakeback consistently outperforms entry-tier competitors that require significant wagering before meaningful rewards activate.”

On a $200 slot session with an average house edge of around 3%, Moonrake returned approximately $1.50 in rakeback. That adds up fast across four weeks of volume. Moonback ran alongside as a separate mechanic, returning 4% of net weekly losses every Monday with no wagering requirement.

During week three, Wollie finished down $180 net. Moonback credited $7.20 straight to his withdrawable balance the following Monday. At higher Moondrop tiers, Moonrake rises to 40% at Apex. Moonback reaches 10%. Every rate is posted before any deposit is made.

Rakeback Comparison at a Glance

Feature Flush Casino Moonbet
Entry-level rate 5% (not shown clearly in dashboard) 20% Moonrake (shown on login)
Rakeback frequency Every 30 minutes Real-time, every bet
Lossback program Not a named standalone feature Moonback: 4% weekly at entry tier
Rate transparency Low: point-based, rate not published High: published formula
Wagering requirement on rakeback Unclear at entry level None

KYC and Withdrawals: Where the Differences Become Practical

 

KYC Parameter Flush Casino Moonbet
KYC on signup No No
When it triggers Case-by-case, undefined threshold Withdrawals over $2,000
Transparency Low High
Withdrawal fees None None
Withdrawal speed Under 2 minutes (standard conditions) Within minutes

Flush Casino: Soft KYC With a Mixed Record

Flush Casino markets soft KYC. James made two withdrawals under $500, and neither triggered a verification request. The broader player record is less clean. A complaint from Yaadman on AskGamblers described an account being violated for requesting KYC under false pretenses, and then the account was blocked with $2,520 still in it.

Casino Guru gives Flush a Safety Index of 8.3 out of 10, noting low complaint volume relative to its size. The complaints involve account suspensions following wins and delays in rewards after platform updates.

Moonbet: Fixed Threshold With No Surprises

Moonbet’s KYC policy is simple: withdrawals under $2,000 require no identity verification. Larger amounts trigger a standard ID check. The threshold is stated before any session starts. Wollie withdrew $320 in week one and $450 in week three. Both arrived within minutes.

On Trustpilot, a recent Moonbet player wrote: Moonbet respects the rules and maintains the privacy it claims throughout the gaming session.

Another player, Brent, wrote that he loved the No KYC threshold as he did not like sharing his personal details. He also mentioned the casino’s quick onboarding process.

VIP Programs: Published Tiers vs Point Accumulation

Flush Casino has a 10-tier VIP system. Players earn points per dollar wagered and access higher cashback, daily free spins, and, at top tiers, a dedicated VIP host. The Fall 2025 revamp improved the mechanics. The gap in our testing was early-tier clarity. James could not find his numeric rakeback rate displayed on the dashboard and saw no visible progress tracker toward the next tier during his first sessions.

Wollie could see everything from day one on Moonbet. His MOONDROP tier, exact Moonrake rate, Moonback rate, and lifetime wagering total toward the next level were all on his dashboard.

The five tiers run from Contender (entry to $100,000 lifetime wager) through Challenger, Elite, Dominant, and Apex. Daily and instant challenges add a session-based layer on top. A dedicated VIP manager unlocks at the Elite level.

“This dashboard transparency matches what we observed when testing Moonbet against Stake’s hidden formulas and Jackbit’s tiered progression, where Moonbet consistently shows exact rates before any deposit.”

Our Verdict

The clearest difference over four weeks was neither game count nor withdrawal speed. It was what each platform communicated before we made the deposit.

Flush Casino has 8,000+ games, a sportsbook, and a real VIP system. The concern is the complaint record: a months-long rewards blackout, voided balances on relaunch, and support interactions players described as dismissive.

Moonbet gave James and Wollie a published 20% Moonrake rate, 4% weekly Moonback, five defined tiers, and a clear $2,000 KYC threshold, all before the first bet. The originals and sportsbook are still in development, and the track record is shorter. But for players who want to know what they are earning on every single bet before depositing, Moonbet answers that from minute one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Flush Casino require KYC?

Flush Casino does not require verification at signup. KYC is triggered on a case-by-case basis. Some players have reported requests arriving without a defined prior threshold, including after consecutive winning withdrawals.

Does Moonbet require KYC?

Moonbet does not require KYC for withdrawals under $2,000. The threshold is stated in the platform policy. Standard identity verification applies to larger amounts, with no mid-session surprise triggers under that limit.

What rakeback rate does Flush Casino offer?

Flush Casino’s cashback starts at 5% and increases with the VIP tier. Rakeback is paid every 30 minutes after the Fall 2025 revamp. The entry-level numeric rate is not prominently displayed on the dashboard for new players.

Which platform is better for rakeback grinders?

For players who want to know their exact rakeback percentage before placing a single bet, Moonbet’s published 20% Moonrake at the entry level is the more transparent choice.

Gambling involves financial risk. Only wager what you can afford to lose. Set personal deposit limits before playing. For support with problem gambling: USA: National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), 1-800-522-4700 | ncpgambling.org Global: Gambling Therapy

Flush Crypto Casino Review: Bonus Wagering & No KYC Alternative

0

By Don Renee, Casino Reviewer | 10+ Years Testing Online Platforms

Fact-checked by Rickey Black 

I have been reviewing online casinos for over ten years, around 200 platforms total. The ones that look the most polished often bury their real value structure deepest. A reader asked me to properly test Flush Casino a few months back. I spent several weeks on the platform, tested the bonus, tried support twice, and tracked what the VIP system actually delivers. Here’s my honest take.

The Welcome Bonus Math Nobody Shows You

After signing up, I first read the full bonus terms. This habit has saved me more bucks over the years than what I actually spent. At Flush, it immediately raised flags.

The welcome offer spans three deposits. The first deposit gives you either a 100% match up to $200 (Tier 1, from $10) or a 150% match up to $1,500 (Tier 2, from $200). The second deposit adds a 75% match up to $750. The third adds 50% up to $750. On paper, it looks like a generous multi-part package.

For me, the reality was different! I made my first deposit of $100 and received a $100 bonus. The cashier immediately locked my entire balance, including the deposit, and showed me a wagering counter.

“This deposit-plus-bonus wagering trap isn’t unique to Flush. Players report similar bonus structures at BetPanda, where an 80x wagering requirement on deposits creates mathematically impossible clearance conditions for most recreational players.”

To withdraw anything, I needed to wager ($100 + $100) x 30 = $6,000. Not $3,000 on the bonus. $6,000 on the combined total. My own money was part of that locked pool. I read a few player reviews on Trustpilot. Callum Smith had a similar, or I dare say, worse, experience.

I ran the numbers on the Tier 2 path too. A $300 deposit with a $450 bonus requires ($300 + $450) x 35 = $26,250 in total wagering before a single dollar becomes withdrawable.

The $5 maximum bet cap made the grind slower than expected. I placed a $20 spin on a Pragmatic Play slot out of habit and then checked my wagering counter. It had not moved by $20. It had moved by $5. The terms are clear on this: any amount above $5 per spin counts for nothing.

I re-read the contribution rates, too. Slots count at 100%, which is fine. But live casino and table games only contribute 10%, and Flush Originals contribute just 5%. Anyone who drifts away from slots while bonus-active will find their progress crawling.

The bonus also expires 30 days after activation. I tracked my counter daily and saw how realistic completion actually was at a $5 max bet. For a recreational player depositing $100, clearing $6,000 in qualifying wagers within 30 days is a real commitment.

My advice: Deposit without activating the bonus. Your balance stays fully liquid, no cap on bets, no counter ticking down. The bonus looks good in a headline and punishes you in practice.

Games, Interface, and What Actually Works

Flush hosts over 8,000 games from Evolution Gaming, Pragmatic Play, Hacksaw Gaming, Nolimit City, and Betsoft, among others. The live casino section covers the full Evolution lineup: Crazy Time, Monopoly Live, standard blackjack and roulette, plus the game show titles most players actually want.

However, after the 2024 platform upgrade, several players reported that slot performance felt low. Sessions drained faster, returns came in slower. I noticed the same pattern during longer sessions on slots I had played before the redesign.

Rakeback Sits Behind a VIP Wall

At Flush, rakeback is VIP-gated. You earn points at 10 per $1 on slots, 5 per $1 on live games and Flush Originals, and those points move you up tiers over time. The rakeback percentage for each tier is not published in a clear, publicly available table. Cashback reportedly starts around 5% at the lower levels, but the exact figure depends on your position in the ladder and is not disclosed at signup.

The result is that new players wager at the full house edge, with no return, until they grind into a tier where it matters. For someone depositing $500 a week, that could mean weeks of play with nothing coming back.

Higher-tier players do access daily free spins, reload bonuses, and poker tournament invites, so there is genuine upside for long-term volume players. But the entry experience offers nothing.

The Upgrade That Wiped Out Player Rewards

In mid-2024, Flush Casino migrated from its original platform to a redesigned version. Players found their accumulated VIP rewards and cashback milestones had not transferred. Support said restoration was tied to the new site launch. The new site got launched. The rewards were still not restored.

The volume and consistency of these complaints across Trustpilot, AskGamblers, and Casino Guru describe a systemic failure during the platform transition that was never addressed.

Withdrawal Caps, KYC Flags, and Frozen Accounts

Flush enforces withdrawal limits of $2,500 per day, $5,000 per week, and $10,000 per month. One AskGamblers reviewer described turning a $300 deposit into $28,000 and spending three weeks trying to get support to respond to a request to raise the cap.

KYC at Flush is not tied to a fixed threshold. Their policy states verification is triggered by suspected suspicious activity. Multiple documented cases show funds withheld after submitting full identity documents.

What Moonbet Did Differently

After wrapping up my time on Flush, I spent two weeks testing Moonbet and felt the structural differences instantly.

Moonrake, the platform’s cashback rewards are credited after every single bet. The formula applied was 0.25 x house edge x wager, so on a $100 spin with a 2% house edge, I earned $0.50 instantly. No wagering requirement or tier to reach. It was sitting on my dashboard before I opened the next game.

The weekly lossback worked the same way. I had a losing week, and Moonback returned 4% of my net losses in real cash at the end of the week.

At Flush, I would have needed to grind into a VIP tier before seeing any cashback or rakeback rewards, and even then, the rates were not published anywhere I could find. At Moonbet, the rates are listed in a public tier table: 4% at Contender, 6% at Elite, 8 to 10% at Apex.

The KYC situation also played out differently. Moonbet states upfront that withdrawals below $2,000 require no verification. I withdrew twice under that threshold without any friction.

On Flush, there is no stated threshold. Based on what other players and I experienced, the trigger appears to be discretionary.

The crypto casino holds an Anjouan gaming license and launched in late 2025. Newer, still in development, sportsbook not yet live, are real limitations. What it does not carry is a record of reward confiscations, opaque VIP rates, or withdrawal caps. Here’s a quick comparison.

Feature Flush Casino Moonbet
Welcome bonus Up to $1,500, 30 to 35x wagering No deposit bonus
Rakeback VIP-gated, rates not publicly disclosed 20% Moonrake from first bet
Weekly lossback VIP-dependent 4% Moonback, all players, week one
Wagering on cashback Yes None
Withdrawal limit $2,500/day, $10,000/month No limit
KYC threshold Not stated, suspicion-triggered $2,000, disclosed before first deposit
Game library 8,000+ titles 10,000+ titles, 50+ providers (e-COGRA audited)

Final Verdict

The structural problems at Flush.com are hard to ignore. The welcome bonus locks funds behind a wagering requirement of up to $26,250. Rakeback is gated with no published rate at the entry level.

The 2024 platform migration resulted in widespread, documented confiscation of rewards that was never resolved. Withdrawal limits create real constraints for high-volume players. KYC enforcement has produced a consistent pattern of false-positive account suspensions.

According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, US online gambling participation has grown 47% since 2018. More players than ever are choosing where to put their money. Based on my testing and the player complaint record, I would not recommend Flush Casino as a primary platform.

If you want rewards from day one, with no VIP wall or wagering requirement, Moonbet is worth a look instead.

FAQ

Is Flush Casino legit?

Yes. Flush holds a Gaming Curacao license under King of Clubz B.V. and has been operating since 2021.

What is the actual wagering requirement on the welcome bonus?

Tier 1 applies 30x to the combined deposit and bonus. Tier 2 applies 35x. Only slots contribute 100% to the wagering clearance. Table games and live casino contribute almost nothing.

Does Flush Casino offer rakeback to all players?

No. Rakeback is tied to VIP tier progression and is not available from the first bet. The rate for each tier is not published in a clear public table, so new players have no way to calculate their earnings before committing volume.

How does Moonbet’s reward system work?

Moonbet runs two parallel reward mechanisms. Moonrake is instant cashback credited after every bet. It requires no wagering to claim. Moonback is a weekly lossback paid as real cash on net losses. Both mechanisms are active from your first session, with all rates published before you deposit

Does Moonbet Casino have a withdrawal limit?

No. Moonbet does not impose daily, weekly, or monthly withdrawal caps. Withdrawals are processed in minutes and are crypto-only. Players withdrawing under $2,000 do not require KYC verification.

Gambling involves financial risk. Play responsibly. For support with problem gambling, contact the National Council on Problem Gambling ncpgambling.org  at 1-800-522-4700.

 

President Trump Explicitly Rejected Iran’s Recent Proposal Regarding Hormuz 

0

President Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s recent proposal regarding the Strait of Hormuz. This stems from the ongoing 2025–2026 US-Iran tensions and conflict involving Israel.

The Strait of Hormuz—a narrow chokepoint between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman—is critical for global energy: it historically carries about 20% of the world’s oil and significant liquefied natural gas. Iran has restricted or threatened shipping there including demands for tolls/permissions and possible mining, while the US imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports and related shipping starting around mid-April 2026.

This has slashed traffic to a fraction of normal levels ~5% of pre-war averages in recent months, redirected dozens of vessels, spiked oil prices; Brent recently hitting multi-year highs near $126, and disrupted supply chains. Iran offered via mediators like Pakistan to reopen the strait, ease its restrictions, and effectively end the active conflict phase in exchange for: The US lifting its naval blockade.

Postponing or setting aside negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program to a later stage. Some reports mention Iran seeking to assert greater control, including potential fees and tolls on transiting ships or requiring. The proposal aimed for a quick de-escalation on the waterway and blockade while kicking the harder nuclear issues down the road.

Trump directly told Axios he is rejecting the offer, stating the blockade will remain in place until Iran addresses its nuclear ambitions with the goal of preventing a nuclear weapon. He has described the blockade as more effective than bombing for applying pressure.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly pushed back, arguing that Iran’s vision of opening the strait still involves Tehran controlling an international waterway—demanding permission or payment—which is unacceptable. He emphasized that the strait should be freely open without Iranian veto power.

Administration sources indicate Trump was dissatisfied or not happy with the proposal because it delays the core US objective: verifiable limits or dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. Accepting it could be seen as weakening leverage or failing to secure a clear victory on the nuclear file. The US position prioritizes sequencing: nuclear concerns and broader issues like missiles and proxies should be addressed alongside or before fully normalizing shipping and lifting the blockade.

Talks have been mediated and indirect, with previous rounds stalling over similar disagreements. Continued closure and blockade risks higher and more volatile oil prices, potential shortages especially in Asia, and knock-on effects on global inflation and growth. Mine-clearing in the strait could take months even after any deal.

The US has redirected vessels, conducted some clearance operations, and maintains naval presence. Iran has accused the US/Israel of aggression; the fragile ceasefire is strained. Escalation risks remain if shipping incidents occur or if Iran ramps up asymmetric responses.

This keeps pressure on Tehran but prolongs economic pain for all sides. Future deals would likely need to tackle nuclear limits, sanctions relief, security guarantees, and free navigation explicitly. The situation is fluid, with ongoing indirect channels and potential for revised proposals. Oil prices and shipping data will be key near-term indicators of de-escalation or further hardening.

 

US FOMC Held its Benchmark Federal Funds Rate at 3.5%

0

The Federal Reserve’s FOMC held its benchmark federal funds rate steady at 3.5%–3.75% on April 29, 2026 following the April 28–29 meeting with an unusually high level of dissent—four members voting against the decision.

This marks the highest number of dissents since October 1992 over 33 years. The vote was roughly 8-4; accounts vary slightly on exact tally due to how the dissents were framed, but four officials opposed aspects of the action or statement. Governor Stephen Miran dissented in favor of an immediate 25-basis-point rate cut. He has consistently pushed for easier policy since joining the Fed in 2025.

Three regional Fed presidents—Beth Hammack (Cleveland), Neel Kashkari (Minneapolis), and Lorie Logan (Dallas)—agreed with holding rates but opposed the easing bias; language in the statement suggesting the next move could be a rate reduction. They preferred more neutral or hawkish forward guidance amid inflation risks.

The statement retained language indicating that the next policy move could still be a cut, while noting solid economic activity, low job gains, and elevated uncertainty including from the Middle East conflict and energy prices. No one on the committee was pushing for a rate hike at this meeting.

This was likely Jerome Powell’s final meeting as Chair, his term as chair ends in May 2026. Powell indicated he plans to remain on the Board of Governors for some time afterward, citing concerns over related investigations. The Fed had delivered three 25-bp cuts late in 2025 before pausing in January and March 2026. Rates have now been on hold for three straight meetings.

Markets had fully priced in no change for this meeting. Dissent reflects ongoing tension within the committee over:Inflation risks — Some see upside pressure from energy prices and geopolitical factors. Growth and labor — activity’s has been resilient, but job gains are soft. Forward guidance — How strongly or whether to signal future easing.

The three presidents who dissented against the easing bias wanted to avoid locking in a dovish tilt when risks are two-sided. Miran, by contrast, sees policy as still too restrictive. This level of division is notable but not unprecedented in Fed history during uncertain times. It highlights that while the current stance is seen as appropriate by the majority, there is no strong consensus on the next steps.

Powell emphasized in the press conference that the economy has shown resilience, and the committee remains attentive to risks on both sides of its dual mandate; price stability and maximum employment. The April 29, 2026 FOMC meeting was not a projections (SEP) meeting. The Fed releases its Summary of Economic Projections—including the famous dot plot—only at the March, June, September, and December meetings.

Therefore, there are no new dot plot or updated median projections from this meeting. The most recent dot plot and SEP come from the March 18, 2026 meeting. Real GDP growth: 2.4% in 2026, 2.3% in 2027, 2.1% in 2028, 2.0% longer run. Slight upgrade to near-term growth vs. prior SEP, signaling resilience despite energy/geopolitical shocks.

Unemployment rate: 4.4% in 2026, 4.3% in 2027, 4.2% in 2028, 4.2% longer run. Stableand slightly soft labor market; no sharp deterioration expected. Headline PCE inflation: 2.7% in 2026; up from ~2.4% in December 2025 SEP, 2.2% in 2027, 2.0% in 2028, 2.0% longer run. Core PCE inflation: 2.7% in 2026 up from ~2.5%, 2.2% in 2027, 2.0% in 2028.

The Fed revised inflation forecasts modestly higher for 2026–2027, largely reflecting energy price pressures and lingering stickiness, while still expecting a return to the 2% target by 2028. Growth and unemployment projections remained relatively stable and optimistic, consistent with a soft landing or no recession baseline.

The distribution for 2026 showed a fairly tight cluster around the median; many participants saw zero or one cut, with some doves including Governor Miran penciling in more aggressive easing and a few hawks seeing no cuts at all. By 2027–2028 and the longer run, views diverged more widely. The majority kept the easing bias language in the statement, consistent with the March dot plot’s expectation of at least modest cuts later in 2026 if inflation cools and risks evolve favorably.

Governor Stephen Miran dissented for an immediate 25 bp cut, aligning with his persistently dovish stance; he has often projected more easing than the median. The three regional presidents dissented against the easing bias in the statement. They preferred a more neutral stance, reflecting caution over elevated inflation risks from energy prices and geopolitics.

This hawkish push against signaling cuts soon suggests some participants may now see the current ~3.6% rate as closer to neutral than the March median implied. In short, the April dissents highlight growing internal tension around the March dot plot’s modest easing path. Upside inflation risks and resilient growth appear to have made some officials less comfortable pre-committing to cuts, while doves like Miran still see policy as overly restrictive for the labor market.

Markets had priced in no change for April and continue to expect limited easing in 2026. The next dot plot will be important: it could show the median shifting toward fewer and no cuts in 2026 if inflation data remains sticky or energy prices stay high, or it could reaffirm the March path if disinflation resumes. Powell emphasized data dependence, two-sided risks, and economic resilience. The higher longer-run neutral rate (3.1%) suggests the Fed views a somewhat higher normal rate environment going forward.

The March dot plot painted a picture of gradual normalization toward 2% inflation with limited easing and stable growth. The April meeting’s high dissent level signals that this path is not consensus—particularly the timing and certainty of cuts—amid fresh inflation and geopolitical uncertainties. The committee remains attentive to both sides of its dual mandate but is proceeding cautiously.