Author | Andrei Jikh

Translation | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Translator | Dingdang (@XiaMiPP)

At the recent Eastern Economic Forum held in Russia, one of Putin's closest advisors made a statement that garnered widespread attention. He stated that the United States is preparing to use cryptocurrencies and stablecoins to devalue its national debt of up to $37 trillion in a nearly imperceptible manner.

His claim is that the U.S. is scheming to "migrate" this debt into a crypto system, completing a system-level reset through what he calls a "crypto cloud," with the ultimate result being that other countries in the world will foot the bill.

At first glance, this may sound like some sort of crazy theory. However, similar views have not emerged for the first time. Michael Saylor, the founder of MicroStrategy and billionaire, has previously made a highly controversial suggestion to Trump: sell all of America's gold and buy Bitcoin instead. By completely depleting the gold reserves, the same funds could buy 5 million Bitcoins. This would effectively demonetize the entire gold asset class. Meanwhile, our rival countries hold large amounts of gold reserves. Their assets would approach zero, while ours would swell to $100 trillion, allowing the U.S. to simultaneously control the global reserve capital network and reserve currency system.

But the question is: Is this realistic? Is it really feasible?

YouTube blogger Andrei Jikh, who has 2.93 million followers, broke down in a video: What did Putin's advisor actually say? And how could the U.S. potentially devalue its $37 trillion debt through stablecoins and Bitcoin? Odaily Planet Daily has compiled and translated this video.

The first question is: Who said this?

The speaker is Anton Kobyakov, a senior advisor to Russian President Putin, who has served for over ten years and is primarily responsible for conveying Russia's strategic narrative at important events like the Eastern Economic Forum.

In his speech, he explicitly pointed out that the U.S. is attempting to rewrite the rules of the gold and crypto markets, with the ultimate goal of pushing the global economic system into what he calls the "crypto cloud." Once the global financial system completes this migration, the U.S. can embed its massive national debt into digital asset structures like stablecoins and then effectively "zero out" the debt through devaluation.

The second question: What does "debt devaluation" actually mean? How does it work?

Let's use an extremely simplified example to understand. Suppose the entire world's wealth is worth just a single $100 bill. I borrow that $100, thus I owe the entire wealth of the world, and I must repay it.

The problem is, if I honestly repay the debt, I must return that $100 intact. But fortunately, I have a special "superpower"—I control the issuance of the world's reserve currency.

So, instead of returning the original $100, I magically print a new $100 bill.

What happens? The total amount of currency in circulation in the world goes from $100 to $200, but the quantity of goods, houses, and resources in the world has not increased.

As a result, the prices of everything start to rise: real estate, stocks, gold, especially things that people want, all become more expensive; something that used to cost $1 now costs $2. Everything has become more expensive, but the supply of goods remains unchanged. This is inflation.

Now, when I return "that $100" to you, on the surface, I have fully fulfilled my debt, but in reality, the money you receive has only half the purchasing power. I have not defaulted, but I have devalued the debt through currency dilution.

Stablecoins are replicating this old script

However, many people do not realize that this is one of the oldest and most common ways of repaying debt in human history. This is also how the U.S. has always repaid its debts.

Debt devaluation does not equal default; it does not mean not repaying. It simply reduces the real value of the debt through inflation or currency manipulation.

And this method has occurred time and again throughout history. It happened after World War II, during the high inflation of the 1970s, and similarly after the pandemic with massive monetary easing.

So, when the Russian advisor says, "the U.S. may use cryptocurrencies to devalue its debt," he is not revealing some new mechanism but describing an old method that the U.S. has already mastered.

The real change is: stablecoins can spread this mechanism globally.

It should be clarified that this does not mean "directly exchanging $37 trillion for stablecoins," but rather using dollar stablecoins backed by U.S. Treasury bonds to disperse the U.S. liability structure among global holders. When the dollar is diluted by inflation, the losses are borne collectively by all holders of these stablecoins.

I want to emphasize an extremely important point, which many people overlook, and this is also the view of Jeff Booth: the natural state of the economy is actually deflationary. This means that if the world only has a fixed amount of currency, over time, with technological advancements and increased production efficiency, goods will naturally become cheaper. Price declines are the natural law. But reality is not like this; the world we actually live in does not operate this way. The reason is simple: governments can create currency infinitely.

When new currency floods into the system, this liquidity must "find a place to go," or it will become worthless. Thus, it is invested in assets like real estate, stocks, gold, and Bitcoin. This is why, in the long run, these assets seem to always be rising. But in reality, they are just maintaining their purchasing power, while the currency that supports everything becomes weaker. It is not that assets are rising; it is that the dollar is devaluing.

The true value of stablecoins: distribution + control

The question is, what if you could expand this superpower? What if you could scale the same trick outside the U.S.? This is where stablecoins come into play.

If the U.S. can already devalue its debt through conventional inflation, what more can stablecoins do? The answer is two words: distribution + control.

Because when inflation occurs domestically in the U.S., the economic pain is immediate: we see higher grocery bills, more expensive housing, rising energy costs, and possibly higher interest rates cooling off, with CPI and consumer price index reports rising, leading to dissatisfaction among the American public.

But stablecoins are different. Because stablecoins typically hold reserves in short-term U.S. Treasury bonds, the demand for dollars and U.S. debt can actually rise with the increasing adoption of stablecoins, making the whole situation self-reinforcing. When USDT and USDC are widely used globally, they essentially hold a digital receipt backed by U.S. Treasury bonds. This means that U.S. debt financing is "invisibly outsourced" to global users.

So, if the U.S. devalues its debt through inflation, the burden will not only fall on American citizens; it will also be "exported" globally through the stablecoin system. Thus, inflation becomes a tax that all global stablecoin holders are forced to bear. Because their digital dollars have also lost purchasing power. Technically, today's system is the same. Dollars are spread all over the world, but stablecoins will become a larger market and will exist on people's smartphones.

Another piece of the puzzle is that stablecoins can appear neutral because they can be created by private companies, not just governments. This means they do not carry the political baggage associated with the Federal Reserve or the Treasury. According to the Genius Act, only approved issuers, such as banks, trust companies, or non-bank companies that can obtain special approval, can issue regulated, dollar-backed stablecoins in the U.S.

If Apple or Meta wanted to, they could theoretically issue their own currency, such as the so-called "Metacoin." What is truly needed is not a technological breakthrough, but political permission. To put it bluntly, as long as you curry favor with the power core and invest enough capital, you could potentially obtain a pass.

It is precisely for this reason that stablecoins play such an important role in the dilution of U.S. debt. They essentially provide a level of control "close to central bank digital currency (CBDC) level," but without the burden of the highly sensitive CBDC label on a global scale.

The fatal problem of stablecoins: trust cannot be fully verified

But the problem is, other countries in the world are not buying it. We have seen this from the ongoing large-scale purchases of gold by central banks around the world.

Stablecoins claim to be pegged to the dollar or U.S. Treasury bonds at a 1:1 ratio; theoretically, every circulating stablecoin should correspond to $1 in cash or equivalent Treasury bond assets. But the reality is: neither individuals nor foreign governments can independently audit these reserves with 100% certainty.

Tether and Circle will release reserve reports, but you must trust the issuers themselves and trust the auditing firms, which are almost all within the U.S. system. When it comes to trust issues involving trillions of dollars, this is an extremely high threshold between nations.

Even if blockchain technology in the future could achieve real-time, transparent audits of stablecoin reserves, it would not solve the deeper issue—the U.S. always has the power to change the rules.

History has already given a clear warning. The U.S. government once promised that dollars could be exchanged for gold at any time, but in 1971, the Nixon administration unilaterally severed this exchange channel. From a global perspective, this was akin to a complete "rule reversal": the promise remains, but the fulfillment was ended with a simple "just kidding."

Therefore, a digital token system built on "please trust us" finds it hard to truly earn the world's trust. Technically, nothing can prevent the U.S. from making a decision on stablecoins similar to the one it made when it decoupled the dollar from gold. This is the fundamental reason for the global vigilance towards the new generation of digital currency systems.

So, the next question is: Will the U.S. really do this in the end?

In my view, this possibility not only exists but is even inevitable; the U.S. is already experimenting with this idea, just not in the way we have heard about.

For example, Michael Saylor has publicly advised Trump and his family to advocate for the U.S. to establish a Bitcoin strategic reserve. His idea is that if the U.S. sells gold and instead buys Bitcoin on a large scale, it could not only suppress gold prices and weaken competitors like China and Russia but also drive up Bitcoin prices and reshape America's balance sheet.

But in the end, this did not happen. Instead, during Trump's term, the idea of a U.S. Bitcoin reserve was merely mentioned and never truly materialized. The U.S. government clearly stated that it would not use taxpayer money to purchase Bitcoin, and at least on a public level, no related actions were observed. Therefore, I believe it will not happen in the way Michael Saylor publicly suggested.

However, this does not mean the story ends here. Because, the government does not necessarily have to be directly involved to participate. The real "backdoor path" lies in the private sector.

MicroStrategy has effectively become a "Bitcoin public company," continuously increasing its Bitcoin holdings under Michael Saylor's leadership, with the current amount reaching hundreds of thousands. So the question arises: If a publicly traded company completes large-scale accumulation of Bitcoin first, is it safer and more discreet than the government buying directly?

Doing so would not be seen as a central bank operation and would not immediately trigger global market panic. And when Bitcoin is truly established as a strategic asset, the U.S. government can completely gain exposure to Bitcoin indirectly through equity stakes or controlling interests—just as it once held partial stakes in companies like Intel. This precedent already exists.

Rather than publicly selling gold, betting on trillion-dollar Bitcoin transactions, or aggressively pushing a stablecoin system, a smarter and more consistent approach for the U.S. is to let private enterprises conduct the experiments first. When a certain model is validated as effective and important enough to be ignored, it can then be absorbed and institutionalized at the national level.

This approach is more covert, gradual, and has greater "deniability," until one day, everything officially comes to light.

Therefore, the core message I want to convey is: there are many ways this can happen, and it is very likely to occur. The judgment of that Russian advisor is not unfounded—if the U.S. truly attempts to fundamentally address its national debt issue, some form of digital asset strategy is almost an inevitable choice.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。