Gold, Fiat Currency, or Bitcoin: Which Will Dominate Global Finance in 10 Years?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Gold, Fiat Currency, or Bitcoin: Which Will Dominate Global Finance in 10 Years?
We now have the tools—but will we use them? That is the central question to be answered by 2036.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Lyn Alden
Translated by AididiaoJP, Foresight News
As I write this in 2026, the world is increasingly moving toward multipolarity—and I expect this trend to persist over the next decade, through 2036.
In fact, the recent unipolar era is historically rare—a true anomaly. Since the end of World War II in 1945—and especially after the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991—the United States has stood as the world’s sole superpower. Telecommunications and industry first connected the entire globe, enabling genuinely worldwide influence.
Before that, multipolarity was the norm. Even at the height of the Roman Empire nearly two thousand years ago, other powerful regions coexisted—such as Han Dynasty China and other Asian kingdoms and empires. That was an era where great powers could exist simultaneously but interacted only minimally.
Multipolarity of power also manifested in monetary multipolarity. For millennia, gold, silver, and secondary commodities served as money. No sovereign ledger was large enough to serve the whole world—only natural, decentralized ledgers could suffice.
But in the telecommunications era, as commerce and money began flowing at light speed starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, even gold proved insufficient. The U.S. dollar became the dominant currency for cross-border lending and contract pricing, while U.S. Treasury securities became central banks’ primary reserve assets. People often cite earlier reserve currencies—like the British pound or the Dutch guilder—but those differed fundamentally from the dollar. They were proxies for metal; gold itself was the true reserve asset of their time. In contrast, during this unipolar superpower era, the freely floating dollar—and its bond market—surpassed the total market value of all known gold, becoming the largest single holding in sovereign reserves.
Many once believed this unipolar era marked “the end of history”—though history never ends. China and India have gradually recovered economic strength from the lows imposed by colonialism and war—events that shaped their destinies throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, in the early 21st century, China has become the world’s largest steel producer, electricity generator, and manufacturing nation. Meanwhile, the United States suffers under the Triffin Dilemma: to sustain its role as issuer of the world’s reserve currency, it must supply its currency globally—achieved via persistent deficits. These deficits—and the resulting industrial hollowing-out—ultimately eroded confidence in the currency.
Today, many U.S. policymakers are no longer willing to bear the costs of issuing a reserve currency—even if few admit it publicly—because imbalances have grown too severe. At the same time, other nations do not wish their assets arbitrarily devalued or frozen by Washington, nor do they want liabilities hardened. No other sovereign entity is both willing and capable of assuming responsibility for a global ledger—a task demanding immense trust and imposing heavy burdens.
Thus, we are witnessing the gradual return of monetary multipolarity.
Gold is the obvious first choice: it remains the only store of value sufficiently large, liquid, and divisible. It is still too slow—but countries now realize they need not bet everything on the dollar, as they did for decades past. They can hold more gold instead of Treasuries, making it a larger portion of their savings. Gold has flaws—but it cannot be hacked, unilaterally devalued or frozen, and it endures eternally.
The second option is prosaic yet realistic: diversification. In a world composed of a handful of major economic powers, countries can spread their fiat exposure. They can hold multiple currencies and bonds proportionally to the size of their trade partners and capital providers—diversifying risks of depreciation and confiscation. But network effects pose a problem: liquidity reinforces itself, and entities resist holding assets and liabilities denominated in different units—so currencies naturally gravitate toward singularity. A patchwork solution combining gold with two or three major fiat currencies as a global ledger is feasible—but not ideal.
The third potential option remains relatively early-stage: Bitcoin. Nature provides a slow but decentralized ledger; sovereigns provide fast but centralized ledgers; Bitcoin delivers a ledger that is both decentralized and fast. The unipolar superpower world emerged in an era where transactions could occur at light speed—but final settlement could not keep pace. Fast global transactions (i.e., IOUs) required only low-bandwidth Morse code telegrams—simple and efficient—while fast global settlement (i.e., irreversible transfers) demanded higher-bandwidth communications and strong cryptography. Today, fast settlement has been scaled, reducing reliance on centralized intermediaries bridging the gap between fast transactions and slow settlement.
Yet two challenges lie ahead: security and network effects.
Bitcoin’s ultimate security has been questioned since inception. Will its economic incentives sustain permissionless, decentralized operation indefinitely—or will it gradually succumb to centralization capture? Will its cryptographic assumptions hold? Relatedly: though decentralized, can it evolve incrementally over time—maintaining functionality and security as the underlying world-computer infrastructure evolves? At just 17 years old, these questions remain unanswered. Yet those of us who invest in this asset—and participate directly or indirectly by funding development—believe Bitcoin represents our best chance, and so we strive to build the reality we wish to see.
Bitcoin’s network effects are strong—but still limited. These effects, combined with its simple and robust design, have sustained its position as the largest cryptocurrency for 17 consecutive years—with no serious competitor emerging. Yet viewed more broadly, it remains a small fish in a vast ocean. Its direct user base numbers only in the millions—while the world’s population exceeds billions. Its market capitalization sits in the trillions of dollars—whereas global assets approach one quadrillion dollars. When people speak of the dollar, they refer to the largest, most liquid currency used as a unit of account—still the dollar globally, and local fiat currencies domestically. It serves as the unit for wages, the reference for commercial contracts, and the instrument for discharging liabilities.
For massive growth, Bitcoin must inevitably experience upward volatility. Such rallies bring euphoria and leverage—which then sow the seeds of downward volatility. This adoption cycle will necessarily span decades, as Bitcoin gradually erodes the entrenched network effects of the dollar and other major currencies. That limits Bitcoin’s appeal as a unit of account and short-term savings vehicle. Instead, it exists as an investable asset, a long-term savings tool, and the most unstoppable means of payment and settlement—for goods and services priced in more stable existing currencies. During this adoption phase, Bitcoin’s fate hinges on the foresight of early adopters planning on multi-decade horizons. The larger it grows, the more stable it becomes—as a unit of account and short-term savings—but reaching that point is a long journey.
So long as Bitcoin continues to withstand security threats—and continues eroding existing monetary networks—it grows more attractive to individuals, enterprises, and sovereigns alike. By 2036, I believe gold will remain popular—people naturally gravitate toward physical, eternal things. I also believe the largest fiat currencies—despite their flaws—will remain widely used: these trains still have a long way to run. If successful, Bitcoin’s market capitalization by 2036 will exceed that of any single stock—and rival the scale of the largest currencies and metals.
Bitcoin’s greatest challenge is not governments, not quantum computers, not rogue developers, nor other digital assets. Rather, its greatest challenge—and greatest risk—is ourselves. It is the people. All of us.
By 2036, war, corruption, and tyranny will still exist—but the question is one of degree and magnitude. People imagine governments impose these upon us—but in reality, only some do. In practice, people 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 malice—but also from human fear. When people fear invaders, plagues, technology, and competition over scarce resources, they turn to leaders for protection. So long as they perceive themselves sheltered under a collective security umbrella—and state power directed outward rather than inward—they willingly surrender some freedoms. This works—for a time—but breeds corruption. Power begets power, eventually turning inward. When state failure occurs, it must be concealed. Critics of the state—whether external or internal—must be silenced. And when freedom vanishes, the very system that promised security ironically becomes its greatest threat.
Those who criticize mass surveillance and bureaucratic overreach by opponents often embrace these same tools the moment their own political allies assume power. This is a shortsighted strategy—either predicated on perpetual rule, or lacking foresight to recognize that these tools will ultimately return, amplified, into opponents’ hands—to be wielded against them anew.
If Bitcoin remains unpopular by 2036, I believe it will be because humanity does not want it—or is not yet ready. Its underlying technology is sound: proof-of-work helps secure the network. Strict constraints on bandwidth and storage help preserve decentralization. Its layered architecture supports scalability and privacy. More work remains—but the foundation is robust, open, and already deployed at scale. Should significant challenges arise, the network can upgrade—provided sufficient consensus is reached.
In the most recent bull-bear cycle, Bitcoin further distanced itself from other cryptocurrencies—but failed to attract many new users. AI services gained public acceptance far faster than Bitcoin, outpacing it in adoption—because people and businesses immediately see AI’s direct benefits, whereas Bitcoin’s advantages remain unclear to many without deep study.
Numerous alternative stores of value exist—yet their volatility is painful. For Bitcoin to truly go mainstream, people must value financial sovereignty. Hundreds of millions—not today’s few million—must recognize the importance of self-custodied savings, permissionless payments, and financial privacy. These are precisely the attributes Bitcoin uniquely delivers at scale.
Before Bitcoin, in this century of fast transactions but slow settlement, governments could control the financial system behind the scenes. By regulating banks, they could monitor and restrict activity extensively—without directly limiting most end users. Thus, most people did not perceive an immediate threat to their financial freedom. With Bitcoin’s arrival, people can run open-source code, transact permissionlessly, and self-custody liquid savings. If governments feel threatened, they can no longer impose restrictions on just thousands of banks—they must enforce them across millions of end users and developers.
The question is: now that technology has lifted the veil, will enough people resist—and overcome friction—to move forward—or will they acquiesce silently and retreat?
We now possess the tools—but will we use them? That is the central question to be answered by 2036.
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
@BitcoinMagazine
