Currency without political connotations
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Currency without political connotations
Bitcoin offers a clear alternative: a pristine store of value asset managed by a predictable and immutable monetary policy.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Brian Cubellis
Translation: Block unicorn
Bitcoin has surpassed $40,000, reaching its highest level since April 2021, while gold is hitting new all-time highs. There are many rational explanations for this simultaneous surge—lack of confidence in the Federal Reserve’s ability to control inflation, ongoing currency devaluation, rising national debt, unsustainable interest expense trajectories, growing deficits, escalating geopolitical tensions, fragility within the banking system, and the realization that assets once considered "risk-free" now carry both significant price risk and counterparty risk.
The reality is that Bitcoin and gold have recently performed well as a combined result of these factors—all sharing common underlying drivers. People are revealing their true preferences, and counterparty risks are being more rigorously assessed. Overall, individuals, institutions, corporations, and nations at every level are realizing that storing economic value in assets that cannot be devalued, frozen, seized, or appropriated by forces beyond their control is the best strategy for preserving wealth into the future (Bitcoin and gold).
Economist Zoltan Pozsar (formerly with Credit Suisse) wrote a prescient report in early 2022 proposing the beginning of a new global monetary order—the birth of Bretton Woods III—and a shift from "inside money" to commodity-backed "outside money." Another way to view this emerging trend is growing aversion toward politicized assets and a preference for fully depoliticized ones. In a world where authorities and institutions’ motives and policies are increasingly questioned—especially when they directly or indirectly influence asset valuations—the case for neutral, non-state assets becomes stronger.
Block unicorn note: Inside money refers to currencies backed by central banks or governments; outside money refers to currencies backed by physical commodities, such as gold.
Bitcoin Has No Politics
A fundamental component of Bitcoin's value proposition lies in its inherent neutrality. Bitcoin possesses many attributes that make it a unique asset, but one of the most important is its non-political nature. Bitcoin has no central issuing authority and is not controlled by any single entity. Much like the internet operates as a decentralized network independent of any one controlling body, Bitcoin shares a similar foundation. As open-source software distributed across tens of thousands of computers worldwide, Bitcoin's inherent resilience is built into its architecture.
Bitcoin’s programmatic nature ensures that its monetary policy is not determined by fallible humans or shifting geopolitical sentiments. Instead, it is rooted in consensus across a decentralized network. This consensus is crucial—it means that any significant change to the Bitcoin protocol, including its monetary policy, requires agreement among a vast and diverse set of network participants, enhancing the system’s resilience and stability.
Furthermore, Bitcoin’s monetary parameters are not just established rules—they are hard-coded into the protocol. Its issuance schedule is programmed, public, known, and transparent. The total supply of Bitcoin will never exceed 21 million coins. Every four years, the number of new bitcoins created and awarded to miners is halved—a process known as the “halving.” This transparent and predictable scarcity stands in stark contrast to traditional fiat currencies, which can be printed without limit based on the whims of central banks and governments. While central planners are well-known for diluting their currencies through excessive money printing, Bitcoin offers a clear alternative—a pristine store of value governed by a predictable and immutable monetary policy.
The Nature of Politics
It's commonly said today that societal divisions and polarization have reached historic highs. Over recent years, a prevailing narrative has been that “politics” has permeated every aspect of life, and as a population, we’ve never been more divided on various topics and issues.
On one hand, historically speaking, this is clearly false—there have been numerous instances in this country and globally where ideological divides were far more extreme than anything seen in modern times. However, it’s worth exploring why polarization feels unprecedented today.
While we may not be at the peak of societal fragmentation in absolute terms, a key distinction of the modern era is our heightened awareness of differences and underlying political motivations. The rise of the internet, the proliferation of social media, and the widespread digitization of information have thrust humanity into an era of unprecedented sensory overload.
Our increasingly interconnected global landscape makes us more aware of differing viewpoints and allows individuals to pull back the curtain, revealing the politicized nature of nearly all social structures. In reality, institutions such as government bodies, corporations, and academic organizations have always been politicized—it’s simply that now we’re more aware of the incentives involved and better equipped to question or challenge the dominant narratives promoted by these institutions.
In essence, politics is how humans attempt to organize and govern themselves. When a topic, issue, discussion, or organization becomes “politicized,” it means specific ideologies and affiliations have infiltrated what was previously neutral or apolitical. From this perspective, politicization can be seen as the primary catalyst for conflict and division—specific viewpoints emerge and naturally manifest as opposing forces.
Misaligned Incentives
While politicization is a natural reality of human interaction and coordination, it’s important to recognize that those in power or influence over a given social structure may be incentivized to exploit or disempower their opponents—or even society at large. Moreover, it’s worth considering whether certain aspects of society should be regarded as apolitical or neutral.
Those in positions of power—whether in government, business, or academia—often have opportunities to manipulate systems for personal gain. This can occur in subtle ways, such as shaping public perception through media channels, or in more overt forms, such as implementing policies that disproportionately benefit specific groups. The potential for exploitation increases when political beliefs infiltrate domains traditionally seen as impartial or non-political.
Currency may be the most critical example of a domain where political influence can have profound consequences. For millennia, humanity rallied around a politically neutral form of money—gold, governed by its economic properties as money rather than political agendas. However, since the creation and spread of unbacked fiat currencies, monetary policy is no longer immune to politicization. The ability to manipulate interest rates, restrict free markets through regulation, or arbitrarily devalue currency is often driven by political motives rather than pure economic considerations.
Growing inequality, eroding trust in financial institutions, and widespread economic instability stem largely from the use of our monetary system as a tool for political gain rather than for the broader economic well-being of society. These factors not only affect a nation’s economic health but also contribute to the very divisions and polarization we see today.
The Politicization of Traditional Assets
In today’s financial landscape, political elements have merged with traditional stores of value to an unprecedented degree. The seizure of Russia’s financial reserves by the United States due to geopolitical tensions highlights a stark reality—national and international policies can directly impact the security and stability of traditional financial instruments. This politicization is not limited to sovereign assets. Even public equities, traditionally seen as bastions of market-driven valuation, now find themselves increasingly entangled in disputes over environmental, social, and governance (ESG) guidelines.
Another notable example of political intrusion into financial assets was the freezing of Canadian truckers’ bank accounts by the Canadian government in early 2022 during protests. Such a severe response to individual opinions and actions raised concerns about the reliability of the financial system and the extent of government intervention possible even in democratic societies.
These developments reflect a broader trend—financial assets’ value and stability are increasingly vulnerable to political climates and regulatory stances. The implications of this politicization include risks of devaluation and loss of autonomy for individuals and stakeholders alike. In contrast to the politicized nature of traditional financial assets, Bitcoin represents a unique apolitical alternative. Operating independently of centralized financial institutions and political entities, Bitcoin is built on a decentralized and transparent framework. What sets Bitcoin apart is not only its technical features but its deliberate design to exist outside centralized institutions and political influence—embodying a strong commitment to financial sovereignty and resistance against centralization.
Despite being fundamentally apolitical, Bitcoin has attracted attention and support from political figures who see it as a tool against the centralizing forces of the global financial system. Prominent advocates such as Javier Milei (Argentina’s newly elected president) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (a leading independent candidate in the upcoming U.S. presidential election) share a common belief in Bitcoin’s resistance to control and manipulation. This development presents an interesting paradox—politicians championing an inherently apolitical asset. On one hand, Bitcoin’s design and philosophy stand in direct opposition to centralization and politicization. On the other hand, it has become a symbol for politicians to demonstrate their commitment to freedom and individual sovereignty.
The wave of political endorsement for Bitcoin stems from recognition and appreciation of its core characteristics—those that promote freedom, autonomy, and resistance to abuse of centralized power. While politicians may leverage Bitcoin to appeal to populations disillusioned with the traditional financial system, the truth is their advocacy has no effect on the network or the asset itself. Whether this support genuinely aligns with Bitcoin’s principles or is merely a strategic move to gain popular favor, the trend is significant and likely to continue.
This means that as more people recognize Bitcoin’s advantages, demand for it will continue to grow—and this marks the beginning of a monetary revolution. In this transformation, you don’t vote at the ballot box; instead, you vote with your hard-earned units of currency by choosing to support Bitcoin.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@OnrampBitcoin
