THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ORDER AND BITCOIN
Share
Sometimes, certain phrases uttered by the most powerful players in the financial system seem like cracks in the facade of the world. For decades, international finance has cultivated a cautious, almost clinical language, in which crises become "corrections," collapses become "adjustments," and imbalances become "business cycles." But there are times when even this measured language is no longer enough to mask reality. When one of the most influential investors on the planet publicly states that the world order is breaking down, it becomes difficult to dismiss this statement as mere media hype. It sounds more like a historical observation. This is precisely what happened when Ray Dalio, founder of the giant investment firm Bridgewater Associates, published an unusually bleak piece.
In this analysis, he explains that the international system that has organized global finance since World War II is disintegrating. The rules that have structured economic and monetary relations for nearly eight decades are no longer functioning. Political balances are shifting, economic rivalries are intensifying, and financial instruments are becoming geopolitical weapons. According to him, the world order we have known since 1945 is reaching the end of its cycle. To understand the significance of this assertion, one must remember Dalio's position within the financial ecosystem. For several decades, his analyses were closely followed by major banks, sovereign wealth funds, and governments.
His approach was based on a historical reading of economic cycles and major geopolitical transformations. When he speaks today of a possible collapse of the international order, it is not an isolated intuition. It is the conclusion of a model that observes economic history over several centuries. This model rests on a simple but formidable idea: empires follow cycles. They generally emerge after a period of reconstruction, when new institutions appear to stabilize the economy and organize international trade. They then accumulate wealth, innovation, and military power for several generations. Then, gradually, signs of fragility appear. Debt increases, social inequalities deepen, and international rivalries become more aggressive.
According to Dalio, this process repeats itself approximately every 150 years. Economic history offers several examples that seem to confirm this pattern. In the 17th century, the Dutch Republic dominated world trade thanks to its merchant fleet and financial innovations. The Amsterdam stock exchange had become the center of nascent capitalism. But over time, debt and military rivalries with neighboring powers weakened this dominance. In the 19th century, the British Empire took over. The Industrial Revolution, naval power, and control of trade routes allowed London to establish the pound sterling as the international currency. For nearly a century, the City of London was the heart of the global financial system.
Yet even this empire was not immune to the historical cycle. The two world wars depleted its resources and paved the way for a new dominant power. After 1945, the United States built an unprecedented monetary order. The Bretton Woods agreements established a system in which the dollar became the global benchmark. International institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were designed to stabilize the global economy. For several decades, this system provided relative stability to international trade. But according to Dalio, this system is now approaching its terminal phase. Signs of this transformation are appearing in many areas. Trade rivalries between major powers are intensifying.
Economic sanctions are becoming permanent diplomatic tools. International alliances are being reshaped. The global system, which was based on relatively stable economic cooperation, is beginning to fragment under the pressure of national interests. This transformation was particularly visible at the Munich Security Conference. This type of meeting usually brings together the political and military leaders of the major Western powers. The speeches there are generally carefully crafted to preserve the image of a stable international order. But this year, the tone changed. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that the world order as it had existed for several decades was now over.
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of the need for Europe to prepare for a period of major strategic tensions. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke of a new geopolitical era marked by great power rivalry. When several major leaders begin to make this type of statement simultaneously, it becomes difficult to dismiss these declarations as mere public relations exercises. They reflect a profound shift in the international balance of power. Dalio describes this shift through several types of conflict that typically precede major wars. Trade wars arise when states use tariffs to protect their domestic industries. Technology wars emerge when access to strategic innovations becomes a matter of economic dominance.
Capital wars emerge when financial systems are used to sanction or isolate geopolitical adversaries. These forms of confrontation can exist for a long time without immediately escalating into direct military conflict. But history shows that they often constitute the first steps in an escalation. The parallel with the 1930s is particularly striking. The Great Depression had caused a surge in unemployment and a rise in political tensions in many countries. States responded by erecting trade barriers and using their financial systems to weaken their adversaries. Economic sanctions and embargoes gradually transformed international trade into an arena for political confrontation.
The outcome of this spiral is well known. What Dalio is saying today is that the conditions that preceded this period are beginning to reappear. Economic rivalries are intensifying. International alliances are becoming more fragile. Financial systems are increasingly being used as instruments of power. In this context, his advice to investors seems almost conventional. When stability disappears, one must turn to tangible assets. Gold, according to him, is once again becoming the currency of crisis. But when one reads his analysis carefully, a paradox immediately emerges. The world he describes corresponds almost perfectly to the problem Satoshi Nakamoto was trying to solve when he launched the Bitcoin protocol in 2009.
Bitcoin was born in a specific context. The 2008 global financial crisis revealed the fragility of the banking system and the extent of global debt. Governments injected hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue financial institutions while central banks lowered interest rates to historically low levels. It was in this environment that Satoshi Nakamoto proposed a radical idea: a monetary system operating without a central authority, based on a distributed computer network and pre-programmed currency issuance. The first block of the blockchain contained a message forever etched in the protocol's history: a reference to a newspaper headline announcing a new bank bailout.
This message constituted an implicit critique of the existing monetary system. Since then, Bitcoin has gradually established itself as an experimental monetary alternative. Initially, the project seemed marginal, almost utopian. A digital currency operating without a central bank, without political authority, and without traditional financial infrastructure appeared hardly compatible with the existing monetary system. Yet, year after year, the protocol continued to function. Block after block, transaction after transaction, the network grew, strengthened, and expanded globally. Bitcoin's technical characteristics now remarkably correspond to the problems Ray Dalio describes in his analysis of the world order.
One of the most striking phenomena of recent years concerns the increasing use of financial infrastructure as instruments of geopolitical power. Economic sanctions, once exceptional, have become commonplace diplomatic tools. International payment systems can be used to isolate a country from global trade. Financial reserves held in foreign banks can be frozen. The most striking example remains the freezing of the Russian central bank's reserves in 2022. Within days, several hundred billion dollars were blocked by Western governments. This event caused a silent shock in many capitals. It served as a reminder that financial reserves held in the international system are not entirely neutral.
They can be transformed into political instruments when geopolitical tensions escalate. In such a context, the notion of monetary sovereignty takes on a profound meaning. Bitcoin operates according to a radically different logic. Possession of the private keys guarantees ownership of the funds. No government, central bank, or financial institution can block or confiscate these assets without direct access to the cryptographic keys. This architecture transforms Bitcoin into a truly sovereign asset, independent of traditional financial infrastructures. The same reasoning applies to international payment systems. When a country is excluded from the global banking network, its ability to conduct international transactions can be severely compromised.
The exclusion of certain institutions from the SWIFT system demonstrated the power of these infrastructures. When an actor is cut off from this network, it becomes extremely difficult for them to participate in global trade. Bitcoin does not depend on any of these infrastructures. The protocol operates continuously, without borders or authorization. Transactions can be validated by thousands of computers distributed across the globe. No central authority can decide to suspend the network. No government can prevent an individual from sending value to another user of the system. This property becomes particularly interesting in a world where geopolitical rivalries are multiplying. Another central element of Dalio's analysis concerns the massive indebtedness of states.
For decades, governments have financed their spending by issuing ever-increasing amounts of bonds. Central banks regularly intervene to stabilize financial markets and support public debt. This mechanism can work for a long time, but it generally ends up causing a gradual depreciation of currencies. Monetary history is full of examples of this phenomenon. When states accumulate excessive debt, two solutions usually emerge. The first is to drastically reduce public spending, which often provokes social unrest. The second is to allow inflation to gradually erode the real value of the debt. In both cases, currency holders see their purchasing power diminish.
Bitcoin operates on a completely different logic. Its protocol strictly limits the total supply to twenty-one million units. This limit is embedded in the system's code and cannot be changed without the agreement of the entire network. The rate of new coin creation decreases regularly during events called halvings, which halve the reward given to miners. This programmed issuance creates a form of digital scarcity. Unlike traditional currencies, Bitcoin's supply cannot be adjusted according to current political or economic needs. The protocol continues to function according to its rules, regardless of crises, elections, or government decisions. This characteristic brings Bitcoin closer to gold.
Gold has long served as a store of value precisely because it is rare and difficult to produce. Its total quantity increases slowly over time, thus limiting monetary inflation. For centuries, this property has made gold the basis of many monetary systems. But gold also has obvious limitations. Transporting large quantities of gold across borders is complicated. Storing this metal requires secure physical infrastructure. International gold transactions are slow and expensive. Gold remains a valuable asset, but it still belongs to the physical world. Bitcoin introduces a radical shift. Ownership of funds can be tied to a simple recovery phrase of a few words. This phrase can be memorized, written down, or stored with extreme discretion.
It can cross borders undetected. It can be used to access funds stored anywhere in the world. For the first time in history, it becomes possible to carry a large amount of value solely in one's memory. Bitcoin also possesses another fundamental property: its divisibility. A gold ingot cannot be easily divided to make small payments. Bitcoin can be divided into one hundred million units called satoshis. This divisibility allows for transactions of all sizes, from micropayments to large capital transfers. Finally, Bitcoin offers an unprecedented level of transparency and verifiability. Every transaction is recorded on the blockchain and can be publicly verified.
The ledger is distributed across thousands of computers and is virtually impossible to falsify. This transparency creates an algorithmic system of trust that is independent of any human institution. These properties explain why some investors are beginning to view Bitcoin as a form of digital gold. But a major difference remains. Gold has millennia of monetary history. Bitcoin has only existed for a little over a decade. Monetary systems often take generations to evolve. Trust is not built in a few years. It forms slowly, through crises and economic transformations. Today, the market still treats Bitcoin as a risky asset. Its volatility remains high, and its market cycles are sometimes violent.
But these characteristics are also those of a technology in the process of being adopted. The internet itself went through a period of intense speculation before becoming an essential infrastructure of the modern world. Bitcoin could follow a similar trajectory. From this perspective, Ray Dalio's diagnosis takes on a particularly interesting dimension. When he describes a world marked by capital wars, financial sanctions, and the fragmentation of monetary systems, he is actually describing an environment in which Bitcoin's fundamental properties become especially relevant. Perhaps gold will remain the preferred asset of central banks and institutions when geopolitical tensions escalate. But the question remains open for individuals.
In a world where states can freeze reserves, close banks, and control financial flows, monetary sovereignty becomes a fundamental issue. Bitcoin may not have been created to immediately replace gold or the dollar. But it was designed to function in a world where trust in financial institutions is becoming fragile. If that world is indeed emerging, then Bitcoin's very existence could appear in retrospect as one of the most important inventions of the early 21st century. And perhaps the most fascinating paradox of this period is this: while some of the world's biggest investors are describing the end of the world order, a technology invented in response to the 2008 crisis continues to operate silently. Block after block. Indifferent to political cycles. Indifferent to financial crises. Indifferent to empires.
👉 Also read: