Cryptocurrency is gaining a lot of mainstream attention. This is coming from a number of sources.

For the general population, this is still driven by the markets, bringing in more "price go up" people. This is enhanced by networks such as CNBC which only discuss this technology in market terms.

Then we have the financial people. Naturally, most are looking at it through the above lens. Some, those who are higher up the ladder, see the transition of things such as payments. The further digitization is altering the entire landscape.

It obviously captures the attention of people like Christine Lagarde. As President of the European Central Bank, she carries a great deal of sway over global finance.

Unfortunately, she just doesn't get it. To me, it is no surprise since few appear to consider how things are evolving.

In this article I will discuss what the viewpoint carried is and how I think it is misguided.

Image generated by Ideogram

The Establishment Doesn't Get Crypto Or The Future

Perhaps it is reasonable for ones like Legarde not to grasp the essence of what is taking place. What I will delve into here is theory, albeit one that I think is based upon the trends we saw over the past 30 years.

This means that a continuation of what is in place, from a technological angle, is likely to bring about a certain outcome. It is what is overlooked by those who are trying to position themselves for the future.

Here is what Lagarde has to say:

European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde has urged the European Union to develop its own digital payment platform, moving away from reliance on foreign giants like Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and Alipay.

Source

I will leave aside how the EU is cooked since that is outside the scope of this article. However, it does emphasize the common viewpoint people have.

Legarde is talking about the European Union. That is her focus. Trump is concentrating upon the United States. Xi has China in his sights.

Of course, Legarde is a globalist. She has an EU talking point now but she is all in on the global agenda, something that has been to the detriment of the population in many Western countries. Xi and Trump are more nationalistic.

That said, they all make the same mistake.

Networks Not Nations

When discussing policy, it is obvious we are still dealing in with a physical world. Where one is still matters a great deal. Thus, many policies still have to be based upon location.

It is a situation, nevertheless, that is changing. As we bridge the physical to the digital world, geographic location means a lot less. We have discussed this in the past with conversations about the Network-State.

Legarde is espouse how the EU needs it own platforms. Here is where she gets part of the equation right.

Her misstep is in tying a payment network to an area. She used the major players such as Visa as the example. The issue I have is that I think Visa will come under attack. I cannot see how this company even begins to compete in the agentic age. It can create a buffer by having a stablecoin, but then we have transactions starting to exit the network.

Regulation is a way that governments still retain control. However, we are seeing more development that takes place outside those boundaries. When it comes to truly decentralized networks, this supersedes the power of government control.

It is something that people like Legarde ignore.

Envisioning The Future

I will admit that seeing the future of the Network-State is difficult. That said, if we look at what already arose, we can see the foundation.

Meta is a entity that has a "population" greater than India and China combined. There are roughly 3 billion users each month of its suite of applications. The tentacles are only expanding as Llama, an open source LLM, is adopted by other entities. Here we see the basis of the new models coming from Meta.

Blockchains are another area where we see drastic change. We are still in the early phases of this but more attention is being given. For the rest of the decade, there will be hybrid systems as established players look to enter yet still want to maintain control.

My view is this eventually gives way to more decentralization as we start the 2030s. With AI advancing and the apparent solution to be open source, this means we will see AI integration into many decentralized networks.

That will start the process towards explosive growth.

Here is where the idea of an "EU payment" system matters none. As we enter this period, the communications aspect of the monetary system will not be the likes of Visa. Instead, the digital networks will be built upon blockchains. We already see this to a degree with the existing stablecoins. Upcoming regulation appears to keep this concept alive which means even more will be built upon networks such as Ethereum (the EVMs).

Disruption is presenting an interesting choice. Traditionally, when this occurs, the established entities get obliterated. This means that older players exit with newer entrants become more powerful.

Of course, this is taken from an industry perspective.

Does this also apply to particular geographic regions? My guess is there will be some that adapt but many will die off. This means leaders of today will drop down with laggards surpassing. We could see under developed nations that embrace technology actually eclipsing its stronger counterparts.

That is if they do not adapt.

Viewing the world through a national lens is not the best approach in my view. Geography is waning in importance. This should be evident as we start looking at systems being placed in space. Does it really matter what country places a data center on the Moon or Mars?

The pace of change is rapid and many are struggling to keep up. Crypto is growing in importance as technology advances.

Posted Using INLEO