Written by: Lyn Alden

Compiled by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

When I write this in 2026, the world is becoming increasingly multipolar, and I expect this trend to continue into the next decade and into 2036.

In fact, this recent unipolar era is a rare anomaly in history. Since the end of World War II in 1945, and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has existed as the world's sole superpower. Telecommunications and industry have connected the entire world for the first time, achieving truly global influence.

Prior to this, multipolarity was the norm. Even during the height of the Roman Empire nearly two thousand years ago, other equally powerful regions existed in the world, including the Han Dynasty and other Asian kingdoms and empires. That was a truly significant era, where great powers could coexist, but interaction was limited.

The multipolarity of power is also reflected in the multipolarity of currency. For millennia, gold, silver, and minor commodities have served as currency. No single sovereign ledger is large enough to serve the entire world; therefore, only a naturally decentralized ledger can fulfill this role.

But in the telecommunications age, with commerce and money flowing at the speed of light in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, even gold proved insufficient. The US dollar became the primary currency for cross-border lending and contract pricing, while US Treasury bonds became the primary reserve asset for central banks. Previous reserve currencies, such as the British pound or the Dutch guilder, are often mentioned, but they differ from the dollar. They were agents of metals, while gold itself was the true reserve currency of that era. However, in this era of a unipolar superpower, the freely floating dollar and its bond market have surpassed the known market value of gold, becoming the largest holding in sovereign reserves.

Many have considered this unipolar era the "end of history," even though history has never truly ended. China and India have gradually recovered their economic strength from the depths of colonialism and war—events that shaped their destinies in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, China has become the world's largest steel producer, electricity generator, and manufacturing powerhouse. Meanwhile, the United States suffers from the Triffin Dilemma: to maintain its status as the world's reserve currency, it must provide the world with its own currency, achieved through persistent deficits. These deficits, and the resulting hollowing out of industry, ultimately erode trust in the currency.

Today, many in power in the United States are no longer willing to bear the costs of issuing a reserve currency, although few publicly acknowledge that the imbalances have become too severe. Meanwhile, the rest of the world does not want its assets arbitrarily devalued or frozen by Washington, nor does it want its liabilities hardened. No other sovereign entity is willing or able to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the global balance sheet—a responsibility that requires immense trust and comes with a heavy burden.

Therefore, we are witnessing a gradual return to the trend of monetary multipolarity.

Gold is the obvious first choice: it is the only store of value that is large enough, liquid, and divisible. It's still not fast enough, but countries realize they don't have to bet everything on the dollar as they have in recent decades. They can hold more gold as a substitute for government bonds, as a larger part of their savings. Gold has its flaws, but it cannot be hacked, unilaterally devalued, or frozen, and it is eternal.

The second option, though mundane, is diversification. In a world comprised of a few major economies, countries can diversify their fiat currency exposure. They can hold multiple currencies and bonds proportional to the size of their trading partners and capital providers. This mitigates the risks of devaluation and foreclosure. However, the problem lies in network effects: liquidity can be self-reinforcing, and entities are reluctant to have assets and liabilities denominated in different units, thus naturally leading to a tendency towards a single currency. A patchwork approach, with gold and two or three major fiat currencies serving as a global ledger, is feasible but not ideal.

The third potential option is still in its relatively early stages: Bitcoin. Nature provides a slow but decentralized ledger, sovereignty provides a fast but centralized ledger, and Bitcoin provides a ledger that is both decentralized and fast. A unipolar world of superpowers emerged in an era where transactions could be completed at the speed of light, but final settlements couldn't keep up. Fast global transactions (i.e., IOUs) could be accomplished simply through Morse code in telegraph, which was very simple and had low bandwidth; fast global settlements (i.e., irreversible transfers) required much higher bandwidth communication and strong encryption. Today, fast settlements have become scalable, reducing the reliance on centralized intermediaries to bridge the gap between fast transactions and slow settlements.

However, there are two challenges ahead: security and network effects.

Bitcoin's ultimate security has been questioned since its inception. Will its economic incentives allow it to remain permissionless and decentralized indefinitely, or will it gradually gravitate towards centralization? Will its cryptographic assumptions continue to hold? Related to these two questions is: despite its decentralization, can it be progressively upgraded over time to maintain functionality and security as the underlying computing infrastructure evolves? At just 17 years old, these questions remain unanswered. But those of us who have invested in the asset and are directly or indirectly involved in its development believe that Bitcoin represents our best chance, and therefore we strive to create the reality we hope to see.

Bitcoin's network effects are powerful, yet still limited. These network effects, coupled with its simple and robust design, have been enough to keep it the largest cryptocurrency for 17 consecutive years since its inception, with no real competitors emerging. However, from a broader perspective, it is still a small fish in a vast ocean. Its direct user base is only a few million, while the world has billions of people. Its market capitalization is in the trillions of dollars, while global assets total approximately trillions of dollars. When it comes to the US dollar, people use the largest and most liquid currency as their unit of account—globally, it's still the US dollar; locally, other fiat currencies are used. It's the unit of account for salaries, the reference point for business contracts, and the tool for fulfilling liabilities.

For Bitcoin to achieve significant growth, it inevitably needs upward volatility. This upward volatility, accompanied by frenzy and leverage, creates conditions for downward volatility. This period of adoption will inevitably last decades, as it requires the gradual erosion of the existing network effects of the US dollar and other major currencies. This limits Bitcoin's appeal as a unit of account and a short-term savings instrument. It exists as an investable asset, a long-term savings instrument, and the most unstoppable means of payment and settlement for products and services denominated in more stable existing currencies. During this adoption period, Bitcoin's fate depends on the vision of early adopters who plan on a decades-long timeframe. The larger it is, the more stable it becomes, and the more suitable it is as a unit of account and short-term savings instrument, but getting there is a long journey.

As long as Bitcoin continues to withstand security threats and erode existing monetary networks, it will become increasingly attractive to individuals, businesses, and sovereigns. By 2036, I believe gold will remain popular due to the natural inclination to own physical, enduring things. I also believe that the largest fiat currencies, despite their troubles, will remain widely used: these trains still have a long way to go. If successful, Bitcoin's market capitalization in 2036 will surpass that of any single stock and rival the market size of the largest currencies and metals.

The biggest challenge facing Bitcoin is not governments, not quantum computers, not rogue developers, and not other digital assets. On the contrary, the biggest challenge, the biggest risk, is ourselves. It is the people. All the people.

War, corruption, and tyranny will still exist by 2036. But it's a matter of proportion and quantity. People imagine that governments impose these on us, but in reality, only part of it is true. In practice, it is people who actively demand them.

There exists a perceived balance between freedom and security. War, tyranny, and the centralized ledgers that fuel them stem not only from human evil but also from human fear. When people fear invaders, plagues, technology, and competition for scarce resources, they turn to leaders for protection. As long as they perceive themselves under a collective safety net, and that state power is directed at others rather than themselves, they will relinquish some freedom. This works for a time, but it breeds corruption. Power begets power, ultimately turning inward. When a state fails, it must be covered up. Critics of the state, whether from the outside or the inside, must be silenced. When freedom vanishes, the very system that promised security ironically becomes its greatest threat.

Those who criticize their opponents for pervasive surveillance and bureaucratic overreach often embrace these tools immediately after their political allies come to power. This is a shortsighted strategy, either relying on perpetual rule or lacking the foresight to realize that these tools will eventually return to their opponents in even more powerful forms and be used against them again.

If Bitcoin isn't popular by 2036, I think it's because people don't want it or aren't ready for it. Its technology is robust, and proof-of-work helps keep the network secure. Strict limits on bandwidth and storage help keep the network decentralized. The layers on top help provide scalability and privacy. There's still more work to be done, but the foundation is strong, open, and already in use at scale. The network can be upgraded should significant challenges arise, provided sufficient consensus is reached.

In this recent bull-bear cycle, Bitcoin has further widened its gap with other cryptocurrencies but has failed to attract many new users. AI services have been adopted by the public much faster than Bitcoin in terms of adoption, because individuals and businesses can see the direct benefits of AI for them, while the benefits of Bitcoin are not clear to many who have not studied it in depth.

There are many alternative stores of value, and volatility is painful. For Bitcoin to truly take off, it must be because people value financial sovereignty. It must be because hundreds of millions—not just the millions we have now—recognize the importance of self-custodied savings, permissionless payments, and financial privacy. These are precisely the attributes that Bitcoin uniquely offers at its scale.

Before Bitcoin, in this century of fast transactions but slow settlement, governments could control the financial system from the back end. By regulating banks, they could monitor and restrict activity to a great extent, with almost no direct restrictions on any end users. Therefore, most people did not see a direct threat to their financial freedom. With Bitcoin, people can run open-source code, conduct permissionless transactions, and self-custody liquid savings. If governments feel threatened, they can no longer impose restrictions only on a few thousand banks, but must impose restrictions on millions of end users and developers.

The question is, now that technology has unveiled its true nature, will enough people resist and overcome the friction to move forward, or will they simply submit and back down without protest?

We have the tools now, but will we use them? That's the main question to be answered in 2036.

VanEck CEO is bullish on Bitcoin in the long term, but warns that 2026 will be a year of correction following the halving cycle.

Popular Articles