As of 2026, the global order is steadily shifting toward a multipolar structure, and this momentum is likely to persist over the next ten years, extending into 2036.
In truth, the preceding era of unipolarity was the real historical exception. Following the conclusion of World War II in 1945—and particularly after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991—the United States stood alone as the planet’s singular hyperpower. For the first time ever, advances in telecommunications and industrial capacity linked the entire globe, creating the possibility of truly worldwide influence.
Before that shift, multipolar power dynamics were standard. Even at the peak of the Roman Empire nearly 2,000 years ago, other regions held comparable strength—such as the Han Dynasty and various Asian kingdoms and empires. Back then, vast distances mattered enormously, allowing major powers to thrive side by side with minimal interaction.
Mirroring this fragmented political landscape was the fragmented nature of money itself. Throughout millennia, gold and silver, supplemented by other commodities, functioned as money. No single national ledger was extensive enough to serve the entire world; only nature’s decentralized system could fulfill that role.
However, during the telecommunications revolution, as trade and capital began moving at light speed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, even gold proved inadequate. The U.S. dollar emerged as the dominant currency for international lending and contract pricing, while U.S. Treasury bonds became the principal reserve asset for central banks. Some cite earlier reserve currencies like the British pound or Dutch guilder, but these were fundamentally different from the dollar. They acted merely behind the scenes for metal—gold remained the true reserve currency of those ages. But throughout this unipolar hyperpower period, the free-floating dollar and its bond bond market overtook gold’s total market value by far and biggest holding in sovereign reserves.
Many treated this unipolar moment as the “end of history”—though history, of course, never truly ends. China and India steadily rebuilt their economic strength from the devastation of colonialism and conflict that marked their 19th and 20th centuries, with China now becoming the world’s top steel producer, electricity generator, and manufacturer in the early 21st century. Meanwhile, the United States faced the Triffin dilemma: to sustain the world’s reserve currency, the country must constantly supply the world with its currency units, which it accomplishes by running persistent deficits. Those deficits—and the accompanying erosion of domestic industry they fuel—are precisely what gradually erode confidence in that currency.
Today, many American policymakers no longer wish to bear the burdens of issuing the reserve currency, though few state it openly. The imbalances have grown too severe. At the same time, the rest of the world resents having their assets devalued, frozen, or their obligations rigidified at the discretion of Washington. No other sovereign entity exists that is both willing and capable of serving as the world’s ledger, carrying all the necessary trust and the accompanying obligations.
Thus, we now observe a slow but steady return to monetary multipolarity. Gold stands out as the most natural initial option—it remains the only other sufficiently large, liquid, and divisible store of value. It still isn’t quick enough for all purposes, but countries realize they don’t need to rely on the dollar as heavily as before. They can allocate a larger share of their reserves to gold instead of Treasuries than they’ve done in recent decades. Despite its imperfections, gold cannot be hacked, cannot be arbitrarily debased or frozen, and endures indefinitely.
The second option is straightforward yet compelling: diversification. In a world with several major economic powers, nations can spread their fiat currency exposures. They can maintain a mix of currencies and bonds roughly proportional to the economic weight of their trading partners and capital sources. This reduces risk from both currency debasement and asset confiscation. The obstacle here lies in network dynamics: liquidity attracts more liquidity, and entities prefer keeping assets and liabilities in uniform units, so money naturally gravitates toward a single standard whenever feasible. A shared arrangement of gold plus two or three major fiat currencies functioning collectively as the world’s ledger is feasible—but far from perfect.
The third possibility, still in its early stages, is Bitcoin. Nature supplied slow but decentralized ledgers; sovereigns provided fast but centralized ones; and this third approach now delivers a ledger combining both decentralization and speed. The hyperpower unipolar era emerged at a time when transactions could travel at light speed, but final settlement could not. Rapid global transactions (essentially IOUs) required nothing more than simple, low-bandwidth telegraph connections using Morse code, whereas rapid global settlements (meaning irreversible transfers) demanded far greater bandwidth and robust encryption. Now that fast settlement operates at scale, dependence on centralized intermediaries to close the gap between quick transactions and delayed settlements can be significantly reduced.
Going forward, however, two major challenges remain: security and network effects.
Bitcoin’s long-term security has been debated since its creation. Will its economic incentives preserve its permissionless and decentralized character indefinitely, or will it eventually drift toward centralized control? Will its cryptographic foundations continue to hold? And tied to both concerns: can it evolve gradually despite its decentralized structure, ensuring it stays functional and secure as the world’s computing infrastructure transforms beneath it? At just seventeen years old, these questions remain unresolved, but those of us who hold the asset and contribute to its development—either directly or through funding—believe Bitcoin represents humanity’s best chance, and we strive to bring that vision to life.
Bitcoin’s network effects are powerful but still narrow. These network effects, paired with its elegant and resilient architecture, have sustained it as the largest cryptocurrency for seventeen consecutive years since launch, with no genuine competitor in sight. Yet viewed more broadly, it remains a small fish in a vast ocean. Its direct user base numbers in the low millions among billions of people worldwide. Its market capitalization sits in the low trillions of dollars, dwarfed by global asset totals approaching a quadrillion dollars. And regarding dollars specifically, people rely on the largest and most liquid money as their unit of account—the dollar globally and other fiat currencies locally. It’s what salaries are paid in, what business contracts reference, and what satisfies financial obligations.
To achieve truly massive scale, Bitcoin inherently requires upward price volatility. Such volatility fuels excitement and leverage, setting the stages for subsequent downturns. This volatile adoption phase—inevitably spanning decades as it gradually erodes the established network effects of the dollar and other major currencies—limits its appeal both as a unit of account and as a short-term savings vehicle. It functions well as an investable asset, as long-term savings, and as the most resilient payment and settlement mechanism for goods and services priced in more stable existing currencies. Bitcoin’s trajectory during this adoption window depends on the vision of early adopters who think in terms of decades. The larger it grows,
The greater its stability and reliability as both a unit of account and a store of near-term savings, the more appealing it becomes. But reaching that point is a significant undertaking.
As Bitcoin continues to withstand security threats and steadily established market value, it becomes increasingly attractive to individuals, corporations, and even governments. As we approach 2036, I believe gold will likely still hold its appeal, thanks to the innate human desire for tangible, permanent assets. Meanwhile, major fiat currencies, despite their inherent issues, will probably remain in widespread use. Those systems have a long way to go before they’re replaced. If successful, by 2036, Bitcoin would surpass any individual stock and compete with the world’s largest currencies and precious metals in terms of market capitalization.
The greatest challenge facing Bitcoin isn’t governments, quantum computers, rogue developers, or competing virtual assets. The greatest challenge, the greatest *risk*, is us.
By 2036, conflict, corruption, and authoritarianism will still exist. But it comes down to numbers and proportions. While many believe that governments are solely responsible for imposing these conditions, the reality is more complex. In practice, people often invite it in.
There is a perceived trade-off between freedom and security. War, tyranny, and the centralized systems that enable them stem not only from human malice but also from human fear. Facing perceived threats from external dangers, crises, technological disruption, and competition over limited resources, people turn to leaders for protection. They sacrifice some personal freedom in exchange for what they believe is collective safety, trusting that state power will be directed outward rather than at them personally. This arrangement may work for a while, but it gradually breeds corruption. Power concentrates, and eventually turns inward. The inevitable failures of the state must be hidden, and dissenters — whether outsiders or internal critics — must be suppressed. Once gone, that system originally meant to provide security ironically becomes its greatest threat.
Those who oppose mass surveillance and bureaucratic overreach when controlled by their political opponents often willingly embrace those same tools when their side gains power. This is a short-sighted approach, relying either on the unrealistic hope of permanent control or willful disregard for how those very tools, once strengthened, will eventually be turned against them.
If Bitcoin hasn’t gained widespread adoption by 2036, I believe it will be because humanity wasn’t willing or ready to embrace it. The technology itself is resilient; proof of work protects the network, deliberate limits on bandwidth and storage preserve decentralization, and additional layers built on top offer scalability and privacy. There’s more progress to be made, but the foundation is already strong, operational, and actively used at scale. When major hurdles arise, the network can be updated as long as sufficient consensus exists.
In this most recent market cycle, Bitcoin further separated itself from other virtual assets yet struggled to attract significant numbers of new users. AI services, in contrast, saw rapid mainstream adoption, outpacing Bitcoin, because individuals and businesses could perceive their immediate benefits, whereas Bitcoin’s advantages remained unclear to many without extensive personal research.
Numerous stores of value exist, and its price swings can be painful. For Bitcoin to truly achieve widespread adoption, it will need to be driven by a genuine desire for financial sovereignty. It will require hundreds of millions of people — not just the several million currently involved — to recognize the value of self-custodied savings, permissionless transactions, and financial privacy. Collectively, these are the unique characteristics only Bitcoin can provide at a global scale.
Before this era of instant transactions without fast settlements, governments could quietly assert control over the financial system from behind the scenes. By regulating banks, they could monitor and restrict activities significantly with barely any direct interference with individual users. Consequently, most people faced no apparent threats to their financial freedom. After Bitcoin, people can execute open-source code, transact freely without needing approval, and hold liquid savings under their own control. When governments perceive this as a threat, they can no longer simply impose rules on thousands of banks; they must attempt to restrict millions of individual users and developers directly.
The question now that technology has revealed the underlying power dynamics, is whether enough people will resist and push through the inevitable friction — or whether they will conform without protest and let progress slide backward?
We now possess the tools, but will we use them? That is the central question to answer as we head toward 2036.
**Don’t miss your chance to own *The 2036 Issue*** — featuring articles written by many influential figures in the space pondering the challenges of the next decade!
*This piece is featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The 2036 Issue. We’re sharing it here as an early look at the ideas explored throughout the full issue.*
