BITCOIN AND THE FUTURE OF STATES
Share
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when governments realized that Bitcoin wasn't just a speculative gimmick. Perhaps it was the day a finance minister, in an ill-fitting suit, scrutinized the hashrate curve and realized it resembled no other macroeconomic curve he'd studied in the last thirty years. Perhaps it was when the first energy geopolitics analysts began to talk about Bitcoin as a universal energy surplus conversion network, a kind of monetary magnet attracting everything that was wasted. Or perhaps it was even earlier, the moment Satoshi published his PDF, and a few rare individuals within institutions, too accustomed to seeing innovations with no future, let this thing slip by without realizing they had just missed the turning point of the century.
In any case, when most states finally begin to grasp the magnitude of the ongoing change in 2025, it is already too late. Not too late to exist, but too late to prevent what has already begun. Bitcoin never asked for their opinion. It never sought to destroy them, confront them, or persuade them. The protocol remained silent, almost indifferent, like a natural phenomenon. It advanced block by block, like a glacier that moves a few centimeters a day but ends up reshaping an entire continent. Governments, for their part, thought that innovation was a matter of debate, negotiation, and arbitration. They had forgotten that some innovations don't negotiate. They impose themselves by their very existence.
So, in 2025, states observe a world that no longer revolves around them as it once did. The illusion of total monetary control is crumbling. This is not yet an overt revolution, but an invisible shift in the deep structure of society. Where previously trust was centralized by the state, it is beginning to be distributed across a network that no one controls, and whose credibility rests not on the promise of an elected official, but on an implacable mathematical mechanism. Bitcoin is not just a financial technology; it is the stark recognition that institutional trust is no longer infinite.
In the streets of major capitals, this transformation is not yet visible. The banks are still open, the banknotes still being printed, the parliaments still lit. But in the mental fabric of the population, in the intimacy of individual economic choices, a silent migration has begun. More and more people instinctively understand that the value imposed upon them no longer holds the same sway as before. And governments can no longer reverse this change. They can regulate, prohibit, tax, slow things down. But they cannot reverse the psychological evolution of a world that has discovered that a credible alternative to state-backed currency now exists.
From a geopolitical perspective, Bitcoin acts like a centrifuge. Every country begins to reveal its true nature when its power to create money at will is taken away. States that have built their power on discipline, a productive economy, and balanced governance find a natural partner in Bitcoin. Conversely, those that have grown accustomed to the comfort of perpetual deficits, easy credit, and printing money as a universal solution see Bitcoin as an existential threat. This contrast is not moral; it is mechanical. Bitcoin rewards restraint, transparency, and responsibility. It punishes excess, lies, and manipulation. The problem is that very few states are accustomed to being punished for their structural flaws.
When the first countries officially adopted Bitcoin as a strategic asset, foreign governments laughed. Then they debated. Then they panicked. Because all it takes is for a single government to discreetly accumulate Bitcoin as a reserve currency for all the others to be forced to follow suit, under penalty of being marginalized in a new monetary hierarchy they did not choose. This phenomenon is not theoretical. It has already begun. Some countries don't talk about it publicly, but accumulate behind the scenes. Others, on the contrary, are very public, hoping to attract the economic energy of the pioneers. The question is no longer whether Bitcoin will become a geopolitical force, but who will be the first to adapt their strategy to this reality.
The irony is that governments completely missed the point. They thought they still had decades. They failed to see that Bitcoin is advancing like a slow cultural invasion. It doesn't replace a system; it renders it obsolete. It's a form of oxygen that spreads everywhere, even through the narrowest cracks. Wherever there's a smartphone, a satellite, a solar panel, a Starlink antenna, Bitcoin can exist. No border can contain it. No capital controls can dissolve it. No decree can extinguish it. It doesn't need to be the majority to be irresistible; it simply needs to be available.
Governments then try to regain control. They envision state-backed digital currencies, programmable CBDCs, closed circuits, and stricter controls. But the public quickly realizes that these tools are the exact opposite of Bitcoin. They are observation chambers, technological cages. States want to believe that more surveillance will bring more stability. But history shows the opposite. The more a system controls, the more fragile it becomes. The more it tries to curtail economic freedom, the more economic actors move toward areas where that freedom is respected. Bitcoin becomes one of these areas, not because it promises anarchy, but because it offers rules—real rules, the kind that don't change according to political whims.
In the corridors of power, talk is beginning to circulate about a new kind of brain drain. No longer the flight of scientific talent to Silicon Valley, but the flight of wealth to a network that cannot be seized, frozen, or manipulated. States are realizing with astonishment that they are competing not only with each other, but with a form of deterritorialized monetary architecture. Bitcoin acts as an impartial judge. It rewards states that protect individual liberties, encourage innovation, and respect work and savings. And it punishes regimes that exploit their citizens through inflation. In a world dominated by Bitcoin, survival requires virtues that many governments no longer possess.
The transformation is slow, but visible. People are beginning to distinguish between two types of states: those that are willing to adapt, and those that prefer repression. In the former, Bitcoin becomes a magnet. Entrepreneurs, investors, developers, and miners flock in. Entire cities are being restructured around energy and mining. Regions that were once poor become technological hubs, simply because they have agreed to make room for this new energy economy. In the latter, we see, on the contrary, an intensification of controls, financial repression, and growing fear. But this strategy always fails. The more attempts are made to restrict Bitcoin, the more essential Bitcoin becomes to citizens.
The most astute governments then understand that trying to stop the wave is futile. They must learn to ride it. And this realization marks a turning point. For the first time in a long time, some states are behaving like rational organizations. They understand that Bitcoin is not an enemy, but an arena where they can regain lost trust. They adopt more stable fiscal policies, reduce their debt dependence, and improve their transparency. They understand that they must compete with the protocol itself. Bitcoin becomes their mirror, a harsh but fair one.
In this geopolitical realignment, power does not disappear. It changes form. States do not die. They mutate. They become smaller, more responsible, more responsive. Large, centralized structures become bloated and fragile. Small, agile entities thrive. Sovereignty shifts. It no longer resides solely in borders, but in the ability to interact with a global network without attempting to dominate it. By 2025, few states will fully grasp this logic. But those that embrace it gain a colossal advantage.
So, when we say that governments understood too late, it's not an outright condemnation. It's an observation. They saw the phenomenon, but they underestimated its nature. They mistook it for a political revolution. It isn't. Bitcoin isn't a movement against states. It's a new level of civilization. A level that can't be eliminated because it rests on no leader, no army, no institution. States can't negotiate with Bitcoin. They can only negotiate with themselves. The protocol itself remains static, perfectly indifferent, perfectly impartial. It waits for the world to adapt to it. It never asked for permission. It simply began to exist.
👉 Also read: