We now have the tools, but will we use them? This is the fundamental question to be answered by 2036.

Written by: Lyn Alden

Compiled by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

When I write this article in 2026, the world is increasingly moving toward multipolarity, and I anticipate that this trend will continue for the next decade until 2036.

In fact, the recent unipolar era has been a rare anomaly in history. Since the end of World War II in 1945, particularly since the dissolution 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 true global influence.

Prior to this, multipolarity was the norm. Even during the height of the Roman Empire nearly two thousand years ago, there were other equally powerful regions in the world, including the Han Dynasty and other Asian kingdoms and empires. That was a time far from truly significant, when great powers could coexist, but interactions were limited.

The multipolarity of power is also reflected in the multipolarity of currencies. For thousands of years, gold, silver, and secondary commodities have served as money. No sovereign ledger was large enough to serve the entire world, thus only a naturally decentralized ledger could meet this requirement.

However, in the telecommunications era, with commercial and monetary flows moving at light speed from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, even gold began to feel insufficient. The dollar became the primary currency for cross-border lending and contract pricing, while U.S. Treasury bonds became the primary reserve asset for central banks. People often mention earlier reserve currencies, such as the British pound or the Dutch guilder, but they differ from the dollar. They were proxies for metals, and gold itself was the true reserve currency of that era. However, in this unipolar superpower era, the freely floating dollar and its bond market surpassed the known market value of gold, becoming the largest holding asset in sovereign reserves.

Many believed this unipolar era was the "end of history," though history has never ended. China and India have gradually regained economic strength from the lows of colonialism and war—the 19th and 20th centuries shaped their fates. Now, in the early 21st century, China has become the world’s largest producer of steel, electricity, and a manufacturing giant. Meanwhile, the U.S. suffers from the Triffin Dilemma: to maintain its status as the world reserve currency, it must supply its currency to the world, which it achieves through continuous deficits. These deficits and the resulting hollowing out of industry ultimately weaken trust in the currency.

Today, many in the U.S. ruling class are no longer willing to bear the costs of issuing a reserve currency, although few openly admit that the imbalance has become too severe. Meanwhile, other countries around the world do not wish for their assets to be arbitrarily devalued or frozen by Washington, nor do they want their debts to be hardened. No other sovereign entity is willing and able to bear the heavy burden of being the global ledger—a task requiring immense trust and comes with significant burdens.

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

Gold is the obvious first choice: it is the only means of value storage that is sufficiently large, liquid, and divisible. It still may not be fast enough, but countries realize that they do not have to bet everything on the dollar as they did in the past decades. They can hold more gold instead of government bonds as a larger part of their savings. Gold has its drawbacks, but it cannot be hacked, cannot be devalued or frozen unilaterally, and it exists eternally.

The second choice is mundane yet realistic: diversification. In a world composed of a few major economic powers, nations can spread their exposure to fiat currencies. They can hold various currencies and bonds in proportion to the size of their trade partners and capital providers. This can mitigate the risks of devaluation and confiscation. However, the problem lies in the network effect: liquidity tends to self-reinforce, and entities are reluctant to price assets and liabilities in different units, thus currencies naturally tend toward singularity. A patchwork solution of gold plus two or three major fiat currencies together serving as the global ledger is feasible but not ideal.

The third potential choice is still in a relatively early stage: Bitcoin. Nature provides a slow but decentralized ledger; sovereignty provides a fast but centralized ledger, while Bitcoin offers both a decentralized and fast ledger. The unipolar world of superpowers arises in an era where transaction speeds can reach light speed, but ultimate settlement cannot keep up. Rapid global transactions (i.e., IOUs) can be achieved simply through Morse code on telegraphs, which is very simple and requires little bandwidth; while rapid global settlements (i.e., irreversible transfers) require higher bandwidth communication and strong encryption. Today, rapid settlement has scaled up, reducing reliance on centralized intermediaries to bridge the gap between rapid transactions and slow settlements.

However, the challenges going forward are twofold: security and network effects.

The ultimate security of Bitcoin has been questioned since its inception. Will its economic incentives allow it to remain permissionless and decentralized indefinitely, or will it gradually move towards centralized capture? Will its cryptographic assumptions continue to hold? Related to these two questions is: despite decentralization, can it gradually upgrade over time, thus maintaining functionality and security as the underlying global computer infrastructure evolves? At only 17 years old, these questions remain unanswered. But we, the investors in this asset and those contributing to its development, believe that Bitcoin is our best chance, so we strive to create the reality we wish to see.

The network effect of Bitcoin is strong, but still limited. These network effects, coupled with its simple yet robust design, have been sufficient for it to maintain the status of the largest cryptocurrency for 17 consecutive years without significant competition. However, viewed from a broader perspective, it is still a small fish in a vast ocean. The direct user base consists of only a few million, while the world has billions of people. Its market value is at the trillions of dollars level, while the global asset size has reached about a hundred trillion dollars. When it comes to the dollar, people use the largest and most liquid currency as the unit of account—globally, that remains the dollar, while locally, it is other fiat currencies. This is the unit for payroll, the reference for commercial contracts, and the tool for fulfilling liabilities.

To achieve significant growth, Bitcoin must inevitably move upward. Upward movement brings with it euphoria and leverage, which creates conditions for downward movement. This volatility is bound to persist for decades, as it needs to gradually erode the existing network effects of the dollar and other large currencies. This limits Bitcoin’s appeal as a unit of account and a short-term savings tool. It exists as an investable asset, a long-term savings tool, and the most unstoppable means of payment and settlement against products and services priced in more stable existing currencies. During this adoption phase, Bitcoin’s fate depends on the vision of early adopters who plan in decades. The larger it becomes, the more stable it becomes, and the better it can serve as a unit of account and short-term savings, but reaching there is a long journey.

As long as Bitcoin remains resilient to security threats and continues to erode existing currency networks, it will become increasingly attractive to individuals, businesses, and sovereigns. By 2036, I believe gold will still be popular because people naturally tend to own physical, eternal things. I also believe that despite challenges, the largest fiat currencies will still be widely used: those trains have a long way to go. If successful, Bitcoin’s market value in 2036 will surpass that of any single stock and rival the market size of the largest currencies and metals.

The greatest challenge Bitcoin faces is not from governments, not from quantum computers, not from rogue developers, and not from other digital assets. Rather, the greatest challenge, the greatest risk, is ourselves. It is the people. All the people.

By 2036, wars, corruption, and tyranny will still exist. But it is a matter of proportion and quantity. People imagine that governments impose these things upon us, but in reality, only to some extent does this occur. In practical operation, it is people who actively demand.

There exists a perceived balance between freedom and security. Wars, tyranny, and the centralized ledgers that fuel them arise 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 to be under a collective security umbrella, and that the state's power is directed at others and not themselves, they will relinquish some freedom. This may be effective for a time but fosters corruption. Power breeds power, eventually turning inward. When state failure occurs, it must be covered up. Critics of the state, whether from without or within, must be silenced. When freedom disappears, the system that once promised safety ironically becomes its greatest threat.

Those who criticize excessive monitoring and bureaucratic overreach by their opponents often immediately embrace these tools once their political allies come to power. It is a short-sighted strategy, either relying on perpetual power or lacking foresight—unaware that these tools will ultimately return to their opponents in a more powerful form to be used against them again.

If by 2036 Bitcoin is still not popular, I believe it is because humanity does not want it or is not yet ready. Its technology is robust; proof of work helps maintain network security. Strict limits on bandwidth and storage help keep the network decentralized. The layers built on it contribute to scalability and privacy. There is still more work to be done, but the foundation is strong, open, and has been used at scale. When major challenges arise, as long as sufficient consensus is reached, the network can be upgraded.

In the recent bull and bear cycle, Bitcoin further distanced itself from other cryptocurrencies but failed to attract many new users. AI services have been adopted by the public much more rapidly, surpassing Bitcoin in adoption, as people and businesses see the direct benefits of AI to them, while the benefits of Bitcoin are not clear to many who haven't researched deeply.

There are many alternatives for value storage, and volatility can be painful. For Bitcoin to truly become popular, it must be because people value financial sovereignty. It must be because hundreds of millions of people—not just the current few million—recognize the importance of self-custodied savings, permissionless payments, and financial privacy. These are the unique attributes that Bitcoin provides at scale.

Before Bitcoin, in this century of rapid transactions but lacking quick settlements, governments could control the financial system from behind the scenes. By regulating banks, they could largely monitor and restrict activities, while imposing almost no direct limits on any end users. As a result, most people did not see a direct threat to their financial freedom. After Bitcoin emerged, people can run open-source code, trade permissionlessly, and self-custody liquid savings. If the government feels threatened, they can no longer simply impose restrictions on thousands of banks but must impose restrictions on millions of end users and developers.

The question is, in a world where technology has unveiled the mask, will there be enough people to resist and overcome the friction to move forward, or will they acquiesce and retreat without protest?

We now have the tools, but will we use them? This is the fundamental question to be answered by 2036.