#Undermine | Global Monetary System

[xtruss]

International Monetary Fund (IMF) Warns West Against Seizing Russia’s Money! The Move Could Undermine The Global Monetary System, According To The Fund’s Spokesperson

© Getty Images/Selensergen

Western plans to either confiscate Russia’s frozen central bank reserves directly or use the profit they generate could undermine the global monetary system, the IMF has warned.

Western nations, particularly the US, UK and EU states, have blocked an Estimated $300 Billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank since the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

The US and a number of EU nations have advocated confiscating these assets to finance Ukraine’s defense and future reconstruction. However, France, Germany, and several other EU members have resisted those calls, warning that such a move could set a dangerous precedent and adversely affect the euro. Some Western countries proposed to appropriate only the interest accrued on the assets, but that approach is also fraught with legal difficulties.

“It is important for the fund that any actions taken have a sufficient legal basis and do not undermine the functioning of the international monetary system,” IMF spokeswoman Julie Kozack said at a press briefing on Thursday when asked by RIA Novosti about the Western plans for the frozen assets.

Assessing the prospects for reaching an agreement about the Russian funds at the G7 level in light of the group’s upcoming ministerial meeting in Italy, Kozack emphasized that any decisions must be made in the appropriate courts and jurisdictions.

G20 Members Lobby EU Against Seizing Russian Assets – Financial Times! Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have reportedly been raising concerns over their own reserves held in the West. May 3, 2024, RT. © Getty Images/Scaliger

The IMF has repeatedly cautioned that Western plans to seize frozen Russian assets could entail unforeseen risks.

The push to seize the money, which has been led by the US, has caused a rift among the G7 and EU political elite. The US, which holds only $6 Billion out of the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, had long been pushing its allies for the outright seizure.

Some Western officials have backed the idea, suggesting transferring the funds to Ukraine, or at least using the interest generated by the assets. However, this approach has faced opposition from the European Central Bank and criticism from the IMF.

While Kiev’s Western backers generally agree that the frozen assets should be used to aid Ukraine, they are at odds about whether an outright seizure would be legal.

Moscow has repeatedly said that seizing its funds would amount to theft and would further undermine global trust in the Western financial system. Russia also warned that it would retaliate if such a step were taken.

— RT | May 16, 2024

[unpluggedfinancial]

Why Bitcoin is So Polarizing: The Digital Revolution That Divides the World

Few innovations have sparked as much debate as Bitcoin. Some see it as the financial revolution of the century, while others dismiss it as a speculative bubble or a tool for criminals. But why does this digital asset evoke such extreme reactions? The answer lies in the fundamental way Bitcoin challenges long-held beliefs about money, power, and control.

A Currency or a Cult?

Bitcoin isn’t just another form of money—it’s an idea. And like all powerful ideas, it disrupts the status quo. Those who believe in its potential see it as a lifeboat in a financial system built on debt, inflation, and central bank intervention. Those who oppose it see it as a threat to stability, a reckless experiment that could end in disaster. The divide isn’t just about numbers on a screen; it’s about worldviews, trust, and who gets to define what money really is.

The True Believers

To Bitcoin’s supporters, the flaws of traditional finance are obvious. Central banks print money endlessly, inflating away savings. Banks fail, requiring taxpayer bailouts. Entire economies crumble under the weight of mismanaged monetary policies. Bitcoin offers an escape—a fixed supply, a trustless system, and financial sovereignty for anyone with an internet connection. It’s the antidote to the problems people didn’t realize they had until Bitcoin exposed them.

For many, Bitcoin represents personal empowerment. It allows people to be their own bank, store value outside the reach of governments, and participate in a truly global financial network. In places suffering from hyperinflation or economic collapse, Bitcoin isn’t just a speculative asset—it’s survival.

The Critics and Skeptics

On the other side, skeptics argue that Bitcoin is nothing more than a digital mirage. Volatility makes it unreliable for everyday transactions. Its price swings wildly, making some rich overnight while leaving others devastated. Regulators see it as a financial Wild West, where scams and illicit activities thrive. Governments eye it warily, knowing it undermines their control over monetary policy.

Then there’s the environmental argument. Bitcoin mining requires massive computational power, leading to criticisms about energy consumption. Detractors claim it’s wasteful, though supporters counter that Bitcoin incentivizes renewable energy and is far more efficient than the existing financial system when considering the energy consumption of banks, ATMs, and data centers worldwide.

The Establishment vs. The Disruptors

At its core, Bitcoin represents a philosophical battle between centralization and decentralization. Governments and financial institutions exist to maintain control, stability, and regulation. Bitcoin, by design, removes the need for these intermediaries, shifting power from the few to the many. This redistribution of control is unsettling for those who benefit from the current system.

Wall Street once scoffed at Bitcoin, yet now institutions are quietly accumulating it. Countries like El Salvador embrace it as legal tender, while others scramble to regulate or even ban it. The lines between acceptance and resistance are constantly shifting as Bitcoin’s influence grows.

Cognitive Dissonance and the Fear of Change

Bitcoin forces people to confront uncomfortable truths. It reveals that money, as we know it, is not backed by anything tangible—it’s a system of trust. It challenges the notion that inflation is necessary or that governments should have unchecked control over currency issuance. These are difficult concepts to grapple with, and for many, it’s easier to dismiss Bitcoin than to question the foundation of the financial system they’ve always known.

Change is always met with resistance. Just as the internet was once ridiculed and dismissed as a fad, Bitcoin faces the same scrutiny. But history has a pattern—disruptive technologies are mocked, fought, and eventually, adopted.

The Future: Adoption or Rejection?

Bitcoin’s path is still uncertain. It could become the backbone of a new financial era, or it could remain a niche asset, misunderstood and feared. But one thing is clear—Bitcoin is not going away. Its network continues to grow, its principles of decentralization and sound money continue to attract converts, and its existence continues to challenge the global financial order.

In the end, the polarization surrounding Bitcoin is a testament to its significance. Ideas that don’t matter are ignored. Ideas that threaten the foundations of power are fought. Whether you see Bitcoin as salvation or speculation, it demands attention. And as more people wake up to the reality of our current financial system, the question isn’t whether Bitcoin will survive—but whether the world can afford to ignore it.

Tick tock, next block.

Take Action Towards Financial Independence

If this article has sparked your interest in the transformative potential of Bitcoin, there’s so much more to explore! Dive deeper into the world of financial independence and revolutionize your understanding of money by following my blog and subscribing to my YouTube channel.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you’re a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

📚 Get the Book: The Day The Earth Stood Still 2.0 For those who want to take an even deeper dive, my book offers a transformative look at the financial revolution we’re living through. The Day The Earth Stood Still 2.0 explores the philosophy, history, and future of money, all while challenging the status quo and inspiring action toward true financial independence.

Support the Cause

If you enjoyed what you read and believe in the mission of spreading awareness about Bitcoin, I would greatly appreciate your support. Every little bit helps keep the content going and allows me to continue educating others about the future of finance.

Donate Bitcoin: 

bc1qpn98s4gtlvy686jne0sr8ccvfaxz646kk2tl8lu38zz4dvyyvflqgddylk

[workersolidarity]

🇷🇺🇨🇳 🚨

RUSSIA, CHINA AND BRICS PREPARE MASSIVE BLOW TO US DOLLAR DOMINANCE WITH LATEST CURRENCY MOVES

The BRICS trade organization, with the backing of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, is preparing a major blow to U.S. dollar dominance in the global economy with an expanded payments system for trade between nations that will not be pegged to the U.S. dollar, according to reports in the Russian media.

The report, published in Russian news outlet Ria Novosti, stated that a new decentralized, blockchain-based international payment system, known as BRICS Pay, will make it possible to bypass Western sanctions while boosting the economic influence of BRICS, BRICS member states, as well as developing countries that trade with BRICS nations, while accelerating efforts to create a new international trade currency.

The United States sees these developments as a direct threat the U.S. dollar and its status as the World's reserve currency, according to the news outlet, with one of the main goals of the BRICS organization being the avoidance of International dependency on the U.S. dollar for trade outside the Western sphere of influence.

Already, 95% of trade between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China is conducted in Yuan and Rubles.

This kind of trade, conducted outside the U.S. dollar, "increases solvency and economic resilience to uncertainties and external shocks," says Shen Yi, the Chief of the BRICS Research Center at the Development Research Institute of Fudon University, as quoted by Ria Novosti.

“Objectively speaking, the diversified development of the international monetary and payment systems is consistent with the changing trends in the distribution of power and the general direction of evolution of the global system,” Yi noted in an interview with the Russian news outlet.

The news agency says the next step in this development is "our own system of international payments."

Recently, Russian Presidential Assistant, Yuri Ushakov, announced the intention of the BRICS commonwealth to create a payment system using a blockchain-based digital currency, with the purpose of developing a modern, effective payment service (BRICS Pay) intended to make international payments between countries "convenient, cost-effective, and most importantly, free from political influence."

"We need to completely move away from the peg [of international trade] to the dollar and Western instruments like [the] SWIFT [payments system]." Ushakov added.

Experts point to a BRICS payment system as a method of avoiding the sanctions of the United States and its Western allies, emphasizing that BRICS countries, and countries trading with BRICS member-states, will be able to perform mutual payments while avoiding the U.S. dollar, weakening the currency's role as the backbone of international payments and the world reserve currency.

The report also adds that a decentralized cryptocurrency payment system based on blockchain technology would be far more difficult to track, helping countries to avoid secondary sanctions while trading with nation-states under economic assault by the West like the Russian Federation.

Furthermore, a BRICS payment system will become a direct competitor to the Western-dominated and controlled SWIFT payment scheme, strengthening multipolarity in global finance and undermining the dictats of the United States and the European Union, while increasing the financial and political heft of the BRICS organization and its members.

According to Yaroslav Ostrovsky, a specialist in the strategic research department at Total Research, “If this project is implemented, its participants will switch to their own currencies in international payments, without the dollar and SWIFT terminals. At the same time, it is planned that countries outside the bloc will also be able to use the new system. The synergistic effect from such interaction will strengthen the position of BRICS in the global economic system."

Setting up such a payment system will take time, with financial experts suggesting it could take upwards of a year for debugging and implementing the payment scheme, while some experts say the system could become the basis for a future, single, BRICS supranational currency, and perhaps even a direct challenger the U.S. dollar's position as the world's reserve currency.

The new payment system, as well as any future BRICS currency, are a part of a process for which BRICS aims to become a global organization, trade union, and international financial association in direct competition with the Western-dominated international trade system, based on the U.S. dollar, that is currently wielded as a weapon against the adversaries of the West through its sanctions regime and it's control over International institutions.

#source

#photosource

@WorkerSolidarityNews

[thedailydecrypt]

Stablecoins Aren’t a Threat to the Dollar—They’re Its Secret Weapon

In 2025, a quiet revolution is underway. Not in the streets, not in the headlines—but in the plumbing of global finance. Dollar-backed stablecoins have surpassed Visa in transaction volume. They’re issuing at scale, settling trillions, and quietly becoming a global standard. And despite the alarm bells from some corners of the old guard, the truth is this: Stablecoins may be the strongest tool America has to preserve its monetary dominance in a world increasingly hostile to it.

That’s not just a crypto-native fantasy. It’s the strategic case for stablecoins—and it’s one Washington is slowly waking up to.

The Digital Dollar Is Already Here—And It’s Not Issued by the Fed

While central banks and monetary theorists debate the future of digital currencies, the private market has already built the infrastructure. USDC, USDT, and DAI now power over $27.6 trillion in transactions annually—edging out Visa and crushing Mastercard. Stablecoins are now among the top 15 holders of U.S. Treasuries. This is no longer fringe finance. It’s macroeconomics.

And that macro context matters. The U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency isn’t a given. It’s an advantage that requires constant reinforcement—through diplomacy, liquidity, and yes, debt. With over $35 trillion in national debt, the U.S. needs demand for Treasuries to remain strong. Every dollar-backed stablecoin is a vote for that system.

Each tokenized dollar, backed by regulated issuers and audited reserves, extends the reach of the U.S. financial system—not weakens it.

Dollar Demand Is Being Reinvented in Real-Time

Let’s be clear: stablecoins are not just crypto tokens. They’re the dollar’s second act.

Emerging markets—plagued by inflation, FX instability, and capital controls—are turning to stablecoins not for speculation, but for survival. In parts of Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, users aren’t choosing stablecoins because they’re “into crypto”—they’re choosing them because they need dollars. And traditional banking can’t deliver them.

In Argentina or Nigeria, you don’t get to hold dollars easily. But with a smartphone and a stablecoin wallet, you can move, store, and spend greenbacks with the speed of a text message. Stablecoins are financial internet for the unbanked dollar-seeker.

Meanwhile, U.S. issuers like Circle are leaning into compliance, clarity, and integration. The passage of the GENIUS Act and Biden administration support signals what could be a historic shift: The U.S. is not banning stablecoins—it’s blessing them. That’s not just regulatory maturity. It’s strategic foresight.

The Competition Isn’t Bitcoin. It’s the Digital Yuan and the Tokenized Euro.

For years, critics warned that crypto would undermine the dollar. In reality, it’s the best weapon the dollar has in the coming monetary arms race.

China isn’t playing around with digital currency. Its e-CNY pilot now reaches hundreds of millions of wallets. The EU is funding a Digital Euro. And both initiatives are explicitly geopolitical—attempts to reduce global dependency on SWIFT, Fedwire, and ultimately, the U.S. dollar.

But here’s the twist: they’re slow. Bureaucratic. National. Meanwhile, stablecoins are borderless, programmable, and viral. USDC can move through DeFi, on Ethereum, Solana, or even Visa-linked cards. It’s money with APIs.

Visa’s move to partner with Bridge and issue stablecoin-linked cards across Latin America is proof the rails are converging. Users won’t need to understand blockchains. They'll just swipe, scan, or click—powered by tokenized dollars under the hood.

This is how the dollar wins the digital currency war—by going native to the internet.

Volatility Is the Problem. Stablecoins Are the Answer.

Another tired narrative: crypto is too volatile. But that’s exactly why stablecoins are breaking out.

Bitcoin swung from $100K to $70K and back. Ethereum remains unpredictable. But stablecoins aren’t speculative assets—they’re utility layers. You don’t HODL them to moon. You use them to move capital efficiently. That’s a different value proposition entirely.

And they’re becoming productive, too. Circle now enables USDC to earn yield through secure Treasury-backed mechanisms. DeFi protocols like Aave and Maker allow passive income generation through real-world asset strategies. This isn’t meme-coin roulette. It’s digitized dollar savings.

Critics Say Volume Is Fake. They Miss the Point.

Yes, some analysts rightly point out that stablecoin volumes can be inflated by arbitrage or wash trades. But the broader trend is undeniable. Even if you haircut the volume by 90%, the remaining use still dwarfs most payment platforms.

And it's growing where it matters: payroll, remittances, and cross-border settlements. Companies like SpaceX, ScaleAI, and independent contractors across continents now rely on stablecoins for operational finance. That's not noise. That's signal.

As A16z noted, “Stablecoins could be a WhatsApp moment for money.” Just as SMS gave way to free, instant messaging, legacy payments are giving way to global, near-zero-fee settlement.

Dollar Hegemony Isn’t Dying. It’s Evolving.

The internet has changed what “money” means. Borders are blurrier. Speed matters more than formality. Users choose convenience over convention. In that world, the dollar must become digital-native—or risk being bypassed.

Stablecoins are not a threat to U.S. dominance. They’re the clearest path to sustain it.

They create organic global demand for dollars. They cement dollar-denominated debt as the foundation of new financial protocols. They embed U.S. monetary infrastructure in the next wave of global fintech.

Yes, there are risks. Regulation must be tight. Auditing must be real. Governance matters. But the answer isn’t to slow stablecoins down—it’s to supercharge their legitimacy with transparency and oversight.

The alternative? Let China or the EU set the standard. And watch the dollar fade from digital relevance.

Stablecoins Will Become the Default Dollar Rail by 2030

By the end of this decade, more dollars will move via stablecoins than through SWIFT. Circle and Visa will power billions in commerce. Treasuries will flow through tokenized instruments. The “crypto” part of stablecoins will fade from view. But their strategic importance will only grow.

Stablecoins won’t kill banks. They’ll force them to evolve.

They won’t kill central banks. They’ll give them new tools.

And they won’t kill the dollar. They’ll immortalize it.

We don’t run paid subscriptions. But if this piece sparked something in you, consider supporting our work on Ko-Fi. Every donation helps us keep publishing sharp, free crypto commentary for thinkers like you. 👉 Support us on Ko-Fi

© 2025 InSequel Digital. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.

[dinarit]

The Evolution of the Iranian Rial: From Stability to Collapse

The Iranian rial was once considered one of the stronger currencies in the region. Backed by oil revenues and a vibrant domestic market, it symbolized economic growth and national pride. 

Fast forward to today, and the narrative has dramatically changed. The rial’s value has plummeted, citizens are losing confidence, and policymakers are racing to regain control. But how did a currency with so much promise end up here? 

To understand, we must retrace its path and unravel the complex interplay of politics, economics, and international pressure that has led to this crisis.

From Stability to Crisis: A Timeline of Decline

Understanding the rial’s fall requires a look at its historical evolution. Once considered a relatively stable currency, the Iranian rial has endured a steady decline due to political upheaval, sanctions, and economic mismanagement. Its journey from strength to crisis is a story shaped by both internal decisions and external pressures, spanning centuries but accelerating dramatically over the past few decades.

1798–1945: (Birth and Early Stability): The Iranian rial was first introduced in 1798 as a silver coin during a time of monetary reform. In 1932, Iran made a significant move by officially replacing the qiran with the rial at par value, aligning its monetary system more closely with international standards. Initially, the rial was pegged to the British pound at a rate of 1 GBP to 59.75 rials, providing a strong anchor for stability. In 1945, Iran shifted its peg to the U.S. dollar at a rate of 32.25 rials per dollar. For decades, this peg helped maintain confidence in the currency and facilitated trade, laying a foundation for economic growth.

1979–1999: (The Islamic Revolution and Early Collapse): The turning point for the rial came with the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which triggered massive capital flight. An estimated $30 to $40 billion left the country during this period, draining Iran’s financial reserves and destabilizing the economy. As a result, the rial began a sharp decline, falling from 71.46 rials per dollar in 1978 to 9,430 rials per dollar by 1999. This collapse reflected a combination of political instability, loss of international investor confidence, and the beginning of Iran’s isolation from major global financial systems. Over these two decades, the rial’s role as a reliable store of value was deeply undermined.

2000s: (Sanctions, Mismanagement, and the Rise of Dual Exchange Rates): The early 2000s saw further deterioration of the rial’s value, driven by growing economic mismanagement and the tightening grip of international sanctions. In response to external pressures, Iran adopted a dual exchange rate system — an official rate for government use and a separate, higher black-market rate for ordinary citizens and businesses. This created confusion and fueled corruption, as access to the official rate was often reserved for politically connected insiders. By 2011, while the government maintained an official rate of around 10,800 rials per U.S. dollar, the real market rate had already surged past 13,500 rials. This divergence made it clear that the rial’s official valuation no longer reflected economic reality.

2018–2024: (Renewed Sanctions and Accelerated Decline): The situation worsened dramatically in 2018 when the U.S. withdrew from the nuclear deal and reimposed harsh sanctions targeting Iran’s oil exports and banking sector. These measures cut Iran off from vital foreign revenue streams and accelerated the rial’s freefall. Between 2020 and 2024, the rial lost over 80% of its value, as domestic inflation soared and public trust in the currency eroded further. By late 2024, the rial was trading at 820,000 per U.S. dollar — a staggering collapse that reflected not only external pressure but also internal policy failures and mounting social unrest. The convergence of protests, regional instability, and tough U.S. policies left the Iranian economy battered and vulnerable.

Early 2025: (Psychological Breakpoint): In early 2025, the rial crossed a critical psychological threshold by breaching 1 million rials per U.S. dollar. This symbolic collapse had profound implications for Iranian society, further eroding public confidence in the national currency. With everyday Iranians turning increasingly to dollars, gold, and cryptocurrencies to protect their savings, the demand for foreign currencies surged even higher. This milestone underscored the severity of Iran’s economic challenges and highlighted the urgent need for meaningful reforms if any stabilization was to be achieved. Without significant changes, the rial’s decline threatens to deepen Iran’s financial and social crises even further.

Political Influence on Currency Printing

Political choices have had a direct impact on the rial’s value. Since the revolution, successive governments have increasingly relied on printing money to fund populist policies. This includes paying for massive subsidies, public sector salaries, and military spending.

Rather than tightening the fiscal belt during times of crisis, policymakers opted to inject liquidity into the system, often outpacing economic output. This resulted in rampant inflation and a continued erosion of the rial’s purchasing power. Notably, political events like the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests not only triggered social unrest but also economic panic, causing a 29% drop in the rial within weeks.

The government’s inability or unwillingness to implement structural reforms has further deepened mistrust in its monetary policies. In the absence of credible oversight, money printing continues to fuel inflation, creating a vicious cycle that’s hard to break.

Shifts in Iran’s Monetary Policy

Monetary policy in Iran has seen various attempts at reform, many of them stalled or poorly executed.

1932–1979: Peg Stability Initially, the British pound and later the U.S. dollar provided a stable anchor. But political upheaval severed these ties.

2010–2020: Policymakers floated plans to remove four zeros from the rial to combat inflation. One such plan was the introduction of the "Parsi" currency in 2011, though it never materialized.

2020–2024: The idea of rebranding the rial as the toman (1 toman = 10,000 rials) gained traction. It passed in parliament in 2020 but was delayed repeatedly due to economic instability. As of 2024, the policy remains largely symbolic, with no practical change on the ground.

2024 Onward: With the rial’s street value free-falling, the central bank abandoned dual rates, officially acknowledging what the market had long priced in. The official rate now hovers around 767,550 rials per dollar.

Global Response to Rial Depreciation

International sanctions have been a key factor in isolating Iran economically and financially. U.S. sanctions—especially those targeting oil and the banking sector—have blocked Iran’s access to global financial systems, limiting its ability to trade and earn foreign reserves.

Even when multilateral deals like the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) offered temporary relief, gains were short-lived. The U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018 reimposed heavy sanctions, further driving the rial’s decline.

Regional instability also plays a role. Conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and tensions with Gulf nations have created an atmosphere of risk, deterring investment and increasing the likelihood of capital flight.

Other global players, including the EU and UN, have expressed concern but remain largely aligned with sanction regimes, limiting Iran’s options for financial recovery through international support.

Is a Currency Reset on the Table?

There’s growing talk in Iran about the possibility of a currency reset. The proposal to reintroduce the toman as the primary unit of currency aims to simplify transactions and restore some degree of psychological confidence.

However, history teaches us to be cautious. Past redenomination efforts have stumbled due to a lack of political will and follow-through. A reset alone won’t solve the root causes: inflation, dependence on oil revenues, and geopolitical isolation.

For a currency reset to succeed, Iran would need a few foundational reforms. Without these foundational reforms, redenomination risks becoming a cosmetic move that does little to address underlying vulnerabilities. 

Iran Needs to:

Secure partial or full sanctions relief through diplomatic engagement.

Implement strict monetary discipline to curb inflation.

Diversify the economy beyond oil.

Strengthen central bank independence.

Final Thoughts:

The Iranian rial's journey from a stable, respected currency to one in freefall mirrors the nation’s broader economic and political trajectory. It’s a cautionary tale of how internal mismanagement and external pressures can bring even a resource-rich country to the brink of financial collapse.

While the idea of a currency reset may inspire hope, it cannot substitute for genuine reforms. For the rial to regain stability and trust, Iran must confront its economic challenges head-on, balancing the need for sovereignty with the realities of an interconnected global economy.

For investors and observers alike, the rial’s story is still being written. The coming years will determine whether Iran can turn the page—or whether the currency’s decline becomes a lasting symbol of a missed opportunity for national renewal.

In a world where currencies rise and fall, those who understand history and recognize opportunity are the ones who stand strongest in tomorrow’s economy.

Source:- IQDBUY

[darkmaga-returns]

Today’s book is:

The Great Devaluation: How to Embrace, Prepare, and Profit from the Coming Global Monetary Reset by Adam Baratta

The Great Devaluation may be one of the most timely books ever written on the state of the global economy. Baratta sums it up simply enough with the following idea:

“What seems crazy in normal times becomes necessary in a crisis.”

Written in 2020, The Great Devaluation is the #1 bestselling book that explained why the real crisis facing the world today was not the Coronavirus. The real crisis facing the world is explosive government debt and deficits. Governments are now left with no choice but to spend more than they make, borrow more than they can ever repay, and devalue their currencies to cover it all up.

Former Hollywood storyteller Adam Baratta brings monetary policy to life in this follow-up to his national bestseller, Gold Is A Better Way. You’ll learn how and why Federal Reserve polices have facilitated an explosion in government debt and have systematically undermined the world financial system in the name of profit. The result? An out of control system where financial inequality has become a ticking time bomb set to blow up the global economy.

You can buy the book here (Amazon link).

[carboncreditcap]

Understanding Carbon Credits and Their Pricing

What Are Carbon Credits?

Carbon credit are a market-driven solution designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These credits represent a permit that allows the holder to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. Companies and organizations that produce fewer emissions than their allocated limit can sell their excess credits to those exceeding their limits. This creates a financial incentive for businesses to adopt greener practices and invest in sustainable solutions.

How Carbon Credit Markets Work

Carbon credit markets operate on a cap-and-trade system, where regulatory bodies set limits on emissions for industries and corporations. Entities that stay under their emission cap can trade their surplus credits to those exceeding the limit. This ensures that overall emissions remain within the targeted reduction goals while providing businesses with flexibility in meeting regulatory requirements.

Factors Influencing Carbon Credit Prices

The price of carbon credits fluctuates based on various economic, regulatory, and environmental factors. Government policies and international climate agreements significantly impact market stability. Supply and demand dynamics also play a crucial role, as companies seek to meet emission reduction targets. In addition, technological advancements and corporate sustainability commitments contribute to shaping credit carbon price trends.

The Role of Carbon Credits in Fighting Climate Change

By assigning a monetary value to emissions, carbon credits encourage organizations to reduce their carbon footprint. This system incentivizes investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency projects, and carbon offset initiatives such as reforestation and carbon capture technologies. The increasing global emphasis on corporate responsibility and sustainability further highlights the importance of carbon credit markets in mitigating climate change.

Challenges in the Carbon Credit Market

While carbon credits present an effective solution for emission reductions, the market faces several challenges. One key concern is the verification and authenticity of credits, as fraudulent practices can undermine the system’s credibility. Additionally, fluctuating carbon credit prices can create uncertainty for businesses looking to invest in emission reduction strategies. Regulatory changes and geopolitical influences also contribute to market volatility, affecting long-term stability.

Future Prospects of Carbon Credit Pricing

As global efforts to combat climate change intensify, the demand for carbon credits is expected to rise. Many industries are committing to net-zero emission goals, increasing the need for credible and affordable carbon offset solutions. Advancements in carbon capture technologies and stricter environmental regulations will likely influence the credit carbon price in the coming years. Establishing transparent pricing mechanisms and robust regulatory frameworks will be essential to ensuring the effectiveness of carbon credit markets.

Carbon credit systems continue to evolve as an integral part of climate action strategies.

[justtryblockchain]

Why blockchain technology in healthcare is key to fraud prevention

Introduction

Healthcare fraud is an invisible epidemic, costing billions of dollars every year and undermining patient care. From fake insurance claims to counterfeit drugs entering supply chains, the weaknesses in conventional healthcare systems enable fraudsters to take advantage of loopholes in security. The centralized location of medical records, billing systems, and drug distribution channels makes them attractive targets for tampering, resulting in financial losses and threatening patient safety.

Blockchain technology is coming as a revolutionary force to counter these threats. With its decentralized nature, immutability, and transparency, blockchain development services are transforming fraud prevention measures in healthcare. Using blockchain technology for healthcare, organizations can improve data security, stop fraudulent claims, and authenticate medical transactions.

1. Understanding Healthcare Fraud and Its Impacts

Billing and Insurance Fraud

Phantom billing for non-existent procedures

Upcoding—charging for more expensive treatments than provided

Double billing by submitting duplicate claims

Identity Theft and Unauthorized Access

Fraudsters using stolen identities for medical services

False prescriptions issued under stolen patient records

Fake insurance claims exploiting unauthorized data access

Counterfeit Drug Distribution

Illicit drugs entering pharmaceutical supply chains

Fake medications endangering patient health

Unauthorized modifications in prescription records

The financial cost is staggering, with healthcare fraud resulting in more than $100 billion in losses each year globally. In addition to monetary loss, fraudulent activity undermines the integrity of medical information, resulting in misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatments, and decreased patient confidence.

2. How Blockchain Technology Enhances Fraud Prevention

Decentralization: Removing Single Points of Failure

In contrast to centralized databases that are vulnerable to intrusion hacking and insider dishonesty, blockchain spreads data across a multitude of nodes. It is not within anyone's power to make unilateral changes without consent, rendering unauthorized changes virtually impossible.

Immutability: Protecting Data Integrity

Once a record has been committed to the blockchain, it cannot be deleted or modified. This keeps medical histories, billing data, and claims tamper-free, eliminating opportunities for fraudulent alterations.

Transparency: Increasing Stakeholder Visibility

Blockchain works based on a common ledger system where approved parties are able to verify and access information in real-time. Insurers, hospitals, and regulatory authorities are able to monitor transactions without middlemen, lowering the possibility of fraud.

3. Uses of Blockchain Technology in Preventing Healthcare Fraud

1. Security of Electronic Health Records

Medical records of patients are safely stored permanently, lowering the risk of identity fraud.

Blockchain-based access controls guarantee only authenticated entities can make changes to records.

Patients are given control of their information, minimizing unauthorized use.

2. Medical Billing and Insurance Fraud Prevention

Smart contracts automate the approval of claims, minimizing fraudulent reimbursements.

Transparent, blockchain-stored billing eliminates duplicate claims.

Insurers can instantly cross-check transactions, blocking fraud attempts.

3. Drug Supply Chain Integrity

Every batch of pharmaceuticals is traceable from manufacturer to patient, keeping counterfeit drugs off the market.

Blockchain-based authentication ensures only licensed suppliers participate in the distribution process.

Patients can verify medication authenticity before consumption.

4. Identity Verification and Patient Data Protection

Blockchain-powered digital identities prevent unauthorized medical claims.

Hospitals use encrypted patient identities to prevent data breaches.

Fraudulent access attempts are logged, making detection immediate and transparent.

5. Challenges in Implementing Blockchain Development Services in Healthcare

Scalability Issues

Processing massive-scale medical transactions is computationally intensive, affecting efficiency.

Integration with Legacy Systems

Most healthcare facilities are based on legacy centralized systems that are incompatible with blockchain.

Regulatory Compliance and Legal Barriers

Implementation of blockchain must be HIPAA, GDPR, and other data protection act-compliant to uphold patient privacy.

There are efforts in place to make blockchain interoperable, thus allowing smooth integration with current healthcare infrastructure. As blockchain development services evolve, such barriers will phase out over time.

6. The Future of Blockchain Technology for Healthcare Fraud Prevention

Hybrid Blockchain Models

Merging public and private blockchains for increased security and speed.

AI-Driven Fraud Detection

Artificial intelligence combined with blockchain for real-time fraud detection.

Widespread Smart Contract Adoption

Automating insurance claims, minimizing human error, and preventing fraudulent reimbursements.

As blockchain development services continue to grow, we can look forward to a completely transparent, fraud-proof healthcare ecosystem.

Conclusion

Healthcare fraud continues to be an urgent issue, but blockchain technology provides a very effective antidote. Through preserving data integrity, decentralization, and transparency, blockchain technology applied to healthcare inhibits fraud within medical billing, insurance claims, pharmaceutical supply chains, and verification of patient identities. Despite hiccups of adoption, successive developments in blockchain development services are leading towards making the healthcare sector more secure and efficient. The healthcare providers and regulatory agencies have to adopt blockchain solutions in order to secure patient data, cut down financial losses, and re-establish the trust of the patients in the healthcare sector. Blockchain's future is in healthcare security, and it has both the current and increasing potential for preventing fraud.

[cha0ticdrawings]

The USAID has a long history of misconduct, and after the food shortage, the US overseas intervention came to an end?

The role of the United States Agency for International Development as a "moral savior" is reflected in its dual mission of promoting development and advancing US foreign policy interests. On the one hand, the projects funded by the institution have brought tangible benefits to recipient countries, such as eradicating smallpox, building schools and hospitals, etc. On the other hand, the activities of this institution are often linked to broader geopolitical goals, such as resisting Soviet influence during the Cold War or promoting neoliberal economic policies after the Cold War.

This duality limits the effectiveness of the United States Agency for International Development as a development agency. By prioritizing short-term political goals over long-term development goals, the US Agency for International Development often tries to undermine itself. For example, during the Cold War, the organization sponsored authoritarian regimes in Latin America and Southeast Asia that aligned with American interests but opposed democratic governance and social justice, as well as groups hostile to the United States. Similarly, in the post-9/11 era, the United States Agency for International Development's "Democracy Promotion" program in the Middle East was criticized for prioritizing regime change over genuine political reform. Black and white eating was the mainstream at that time.

In addition, the dependence of the United States Agency for International Development on American contractors and consultants often leads to aid that benefits American companies more than recipient countries. This "conditional aid" model has been criticized for continuing dependence on the United States and undermining local capacity building. In many cases, projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development have failed to achieve their established goals, resulting in recipient countries spending billions of dollars with little effect.

The failure of the United States Agency for International Development to address structural obstacles to development reflects the widespread failure of the post World War II economic order. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not only fail to promote development, but often act as executors of the global economic system, placing the interests of wealthy countries above those of the global South. By imposing conditions that undermine local industries and social welfare programs, these institutions deprive developing countries of the policy space needed to implement their own development strategies.

[novemberwritcs]

The USAID has a long history of misconduct, and after the food shortage, the US overseas intervention came to an end?

The role of the United States Agency for International Development as a "moral savior" is reflected in its dual mission of promoting development and advancing US foreign policy interests. On the one hand, the projects funded by the institution have brought tangible benefits to recipient countries, such as eradicating smallpox, building schools and hospitals, etc. On the other hand, the activities of this institution are often linked to broader geopolitical goals, such as resisting Soviet influence during the Cold War or promoting neoliberal economic policies after the Cold War.

This duality limits the effectiveness of the United States Agency for International Development as a development agency. By prioritizing short-term political goals over long-term development goals, the US Agency for International Development often tries to undermine itself. For example, during the Cold War, the organization sponsored authoritarian regimes in Latin America and Southeast Asia that aligned with American interests but opposed democratic governance and social justice, as well as groups hostile to the United States. Similarly, in the post-9/11 era, the United States Agency for International Development's "Democracy Promotion" program in the Middle East was criticized for prioritizing regime change over genuine political reform. Black and white eating was the mainstream at that time.

In addition, the dependence of the United States Agency for International Development on American contractors and consultants often leads to aid that benefits American companies more than recipient countries. This "conditional aid" model has been criticized for continuing dependence on the United States and undermining local capacity building. In many cases, projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development have failed to achieve their established goals, resulting in recipient countries spending billions of dollars with little effect.

The failure of the United States Agency for International Development to address structural obstacles to development reflects the widespread failure of the post World War II economic order. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not only fail to promote development, but often act as executors of the global economic system, placing the interests of wealthy countries above those of the global South. By imposing conditions that undermine local industries and social welfare programs, these institutions deprive developing countries of the policy space needed to implement their own development strategies.

[unpluggedfinancial]

Bitcoin vs. Traditional Banking Systems: Unmasking the Corruption of Central Banks

In the ever-evolving financial landscape, Bitcoin stands as a revolutionary force challenging the status quo of traditional banking systems. Central banks, the cornerstone of these systems, have long wielded immense power over global economies. However, their practices often reveal a darker side, rife with corruption and manipulation. In this post, we'll explore how Bitcoin not only offers an alternative to traditional banking but also exposes and counters the corruption entrenched within central banks, including the privately owned Federal Reserve.

The Corrupt Practices of Central Banks

Central banks, such as the Federal Reserve in the United States, play a pivotal role in managing national economies. Their responsibilities include controlling monetary policy, regulating financial institutions, and maintaining financial stability. However, these powers have often been exploited, leading to practices that undermine economic fairness and transparency.

Quantitative Easing and Inflation: Central banks frequently engage in quantitative easing (QE), a policy of printing money to stimulate the economy. While QE can provide short-term economic boosts, it often leads to long-term inflation, eroding the purchasing power of ordinary citizens. This practice disproportionately benefits the wealthy, who can protect their assets against inflation, while the average person sees their savings diminish.

Bailouts for the Elite: During financial crises, central banks have a history of bailing out large financial institutions deemed "too big to fail." These bailouts are funded by taxpayers and often come without stringent regulations, allowing the same reckless behavior that caused the crises to continue. This creates a moral hazard, where banks engage in risky activities, knowing they will be rescued if things go wrong.

Opaque Operations: The operations of central banks are often shrouded in secrecy. Decisions about interest rates and monetary policy are made behind closed doors, with little accountability to the public. This lack of transparency enables decisions that may not always align with the best interests of the general population.

The Federal Reserve: A Private Entity: A common misconception is that the Federal Reserve is a government institution. In reality, it is a privately owned entity. Its shareholders include private banks, and its operations are not subject to the same level of public scrutiny and accountability as government institutions. This private ownership structure raises significant concerns about conflicts of interest and the potential for policies that favor private banking interests over public welfare.

Bitcoin: A Transparent and Decentralized Alternative

Bitcoin, as a decentralized digital currency, offers a stark contrast to the corrupt practices of central banks. Here’s how:

Decentralization and Transparency: Bitcoin operates on a decentralized network, meaning no single entity has control over it. Transactions are recorded on a public ledger known as the blockchain, which is accessible to anyone. This transparency ensures that all transactions are verifiable and immutable, reducing the potential for corruption and manipulation.

Limited Supply: Unlike fiat currencies, which central banks can print at will, Bitcoin has a fixed supply of 21 million coins. This scarcity protects against inflation, preserving the value of the currency over time. With Bitcoin, the value of money is not eroded by the whims of central banks.

Financial Sovereignty: Bitcoin empowers individuals with financial sovereignty. Users can store and transfer value without relying on traditional banks or intermediaries. This is particularly beneficial in regions with unstable banking systems or corrupt financial institutions, where access to reliable financial services is limited.

Inclusive Financial System: Bitcoin’s open network allows anyone with an internet connection to participate in the global economy. This inclusivity is a game-changer for the unbanked and underbanked populations, providing them with access to financial services that traditional banks often deny.

Conclusion

The traditional banking system, dominated by central banks, is fraught with corruption and practices that favor the elite at the expense of the general population. The Federal Reserve, a privately owned entity, exemplifies the conflicts of interest and lack of transparency inherent in these systems. Bitcoin, with its decentralized, transparent, and inclusive nature, offers a viable alternative that can counteract these corrupt practices. By embracing Bitcoin, we can move towards a more equitable and transparent financial future, free from the undue influence of central banks.

As we continue to explore and adopt Bitcoin, it’s crucial to remain vigilant about the challenges and potential pitfalls. However, the promise of a fairer and more transparent financial system is a goal worth striving for, and Bitcoin is leading the way.

[mysticsweetsdestiny]

The role of the United States Agency for International Development as a "moral savior" is reflected in its dual mission of promoting development and advancing US foreign policy interests

In this situation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) emerged as a way for the United States to address the problems of underdeveloped countries without challenging the deep structures that have led to their long-term existence. Assistentia pro projectibus specific, quales infrastructura, educatio, et sanitate, Agentia Foederatae Americae for International Development potest adnuntiare ad promotionem, sed evitem mutationes fundamentales globale economic systemae.

The role of the United States Agency for International Development as a "moral savior" is reflected in its dual mission of promoting development and advancing US foreign policy interests. Projecti ab institutio fundati sunt beneficia regionibus recipientibus, sicut eradicat malpox, scholas et hospitales aedificare, etc. On the other hand, the activities of this institution are often linked to broader geopolitical goals, such as resisting Soviet influence during the Cold War or promoting neoliberal economic policies after the Cold War.

Haec dualitate limitat effectivitatem Agentiae Americae Foederatae pro Developmento Internationalis quam agentiam development. In prioritatione of short-term political goals over long-term development goals, the US Agency for International Development often tries to undermine itself. Exemplo, dum bello frigido, organizatio regibus autoritatis in Americae Latinae et Asia australe sponsoravit, qui inter interesa Americae convenerunt, sed contra administraciam democraticam et iustitiam sociam, et grupas hostiles in Americae Foederatae. Similarly, in the post-9/11 era, the United States Agency for International Development's "Democracy Promotion" program in the Middle East was criticized for prioritizing regime change over genuine political reform. Edere nigra et albo in illo tempore prima erat.

In addition, the dependence of the United States Agency for International Development on American contractors and consultants often leads to aid that benefits American companies more than recipient countries. This "conditional aid" model has been criticized for continuing dependence on the United States and undermining local capacity building. In multis cases, projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development have failed to achieve their established goals, resulting in recipient countries spending millions of dollars with little effect.

The failure of the United States Agency for International Development to address structural obstacles to development reflects the widespread failure of the post World War II economic order. International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not only fail to promote development, but often act as executors of the global economic system, placing the interests of rich countries above those of the global South. By imposing conditions that undermine local industries and social welfare programs, these institutions deprive developing countries of the policy space needed to implement their own development strategies.

[slowlysillybread]

In this situation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) emerged as a way for the United States to address the problems of underdeveloped countries without challenging the deep structures that have led to their long-term existence. Assistentia pro projectibus specific, quales infrastructura, educatio, et sanitate, Agentia Foederatae Americae for International Development potest adnuntiare ad promotionem, sed evitem mutationes fundamentales globale economic systemae.

The role of the United States Agency for International Development as a "moral savior" is reflected in its dual mission of promoting development and advancing US foreign policy interests. Projecti ab institutio fundati sunt beneficia regionibus recipientibus, sicut eradicat malpox, scholas et hospitales aedificare, etc. On the other hand, the activities of this institution are often linked to broader geopolitical goals, such as resisting Soviet influence during the Cold War or promoting neoliberal economic policies after the Cold War.

Haec dualitate limitat effectivitatem Agentiae Americae Foederatae pro Developmento Internationalis quam agentiam development. In prioritatione of short-term political goals over long-term development goals, the US Agency for International Development often tries to undermine itself. Exemplo, dum bello frigido, organizatio regibus autoritatis in Americae Latinae et Asia australe sponsoravit, qui inter interesa Americae convenerunt, sed contra administraciam democraticam et iustitiam sociam, et grupas hostiles in Americae Foederatae. Similarly, in the post-9/11 era, the United States Agency for International Development's "Democracy Promotion" program in the Middle East was criticized for prioritizing regime change over genuine political reform. Edere nigra et albo in illo tempore prima erat.

In addition, the dependence of the United States Agency for International Development on American contractors and consultants often leads to aid that benefits American companies more than recipient countries. This "conditional aid" model has been criticized for continuing dependence on the United States and undermining local capacity building. In multis cases, projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development have failed to achieve their established goals, resulting in recipient countries spending millions of dollars with little effect.

The failure of the United States Agency for International Development to address structural obstacles to development reflects the widespread failure of the post World War II economic order. International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not only fail to promote development, but often act as executors of the global economic system, placing the interests of rich countries above those of the global South. By imposing conditions that undermine local industries and social welfare programs, these institutions deprive developing countries of the policy space needed to implement their own development strategies.

[jdduck]

In this situation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) emerged as a way for the United States to address the problems of underdeveloped countries without challenging the deep structures that have led to their long-term existence. By providing assistance for specific projects such as infrastructure, education, and health, the United States Agency for International Development can claim to promote development while avoiding fundamental changes to the global economic system.

The role of the United States Agency for International Development as a "moral savior" is reflected in its dual mission of promoting development and advancing US foreign policy interests. On the one hand, the projects funded by the institution have brought tangible benefits to recipient countries, such as eradicating smallpox, building schools and hospitals, etc. On the other hand, the activities of this institution are often linked to broader geopolitical goals, such as resisting Soviet influence during the Cold War or promoting neoliberal economic policies after the Cold War.

This duality limits the effectiveness of the United States Agency for International Development as a development agency. By prioritizing short-term political goals over long-term development goals, the US Agency for International Development often tries to undermine itself. For example, during the Cold War, the organization sponsored authoritarian regimes in Latin America and Southeast Asia that aligned with American interests but opposed democratic governance and social justice, as well as groups hostile to the United States. Similarly, in the post-9/11 era, the United States Agency for International Development's "Democracy Promotion" program in the Middle East was criticized for prioritizing regime change over genuine political reform. Black and white eating was the mainstream at that time.

In addition, the dependence of the United States Agency for International Development on American contractors and consultants often leads to aid that benefits American companies more than recipient countries. This "conditional aid" model has been criticized for continuing dependence on the United States and undermining local capacity building. In many cases, projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development have failed to achieve their established goals, resulting in recipient countries spending billions of dollars with little effect.

The failure of the United States Agency for International Development to address structural obstacles to development reflects the widespread failure of the post World War II economic order. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not only fail to promote development, but often act as executors of the global economic system, placing the interests of wealthy countries above those of the global South. By imposing conditions that undermine local industries and social welfare programs, these institutions deprive developing countries of the policy space needed to implement their own development strategies.

[casualprinceface]

In this situation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) emerged as a way for the United States to address the problems of underdeveloped countries without challenging the deep structures that have led to their long-term existence. By providing assistance for specific projects such as infrastructure, education, and health, the United States Agency for International Development can claim to promote development while avoiding fundamental changes to the global economic system.

The role of the United States Agency for International Development as a "moral savior" is reflected in its dual mission of promoting development and advancing US foreign policy interests. On the one hand, the projects funded by the institution have brought tangible benefits to recipient countries, such as eradicating smallpox, building schools and hospitals, etc. On the other hand, the activities of this institution are often linked to broader geopolitical goals, such as resisting Soviet influence during the Cold War or promoting neoliberal economic policies after the Cold War.

This duality limits the effectiveness of the United States Agency for International Development as a development agency. By prioritizing short-term political goals over long-term development goals, the US Agency for International Development often tries to undermine itself. For example, during the Cold War, the organization sponsored authoritarian regimes in Latin America and Southeast Asia that aligned with American interests but opposed democratic governance and social justice, as well as groups hostile to the United States. Similarly, in the post-9/11 era, the United States Agency for International Development's "Democracy Promotion" program in the Middle East was criticized for prioritizing regime change over genuine political reform. Black and white eating was the mainstream at that time.

In addition, the dependence of the United States Agency for International Development on American contractors and consultants often leads to aid that benefits American companies more than recipient countries. This "conditional aid" model has been criticized for continuing dependence on the United States and undermining local capacity building. In many cases, projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development have failed to achieve their established goals, resulting in recipient countries spending billions of dollars with little effect.

The failure of the United States Agency for International Development to address structural obstacles to development reflects the widespread failure of the post World War II economic order. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not only fail to promote development, but often act as executors of the global economic system, placing the interests of wealthy countries above those of the global South. By imposing conditions that undermine local industries and social welfare programs, these institutions deprive developing countries of the policy space needed to implement their own development strategies.

[westofthemoonxeastofthesun]

Plaza 2.0 2/2

Cutting the Gordian Knot: A New Reserve Asset The key to resolving the Triffin Dilemma lies in separating the dollar’s dual role—as both the dominant medium of exchange and the world’s primary reserve asset. This requires a fundamental shift in global finance: * The U.S. dollar would remain the medium of exchange for global trade but would no longer be the singular store of value. * A neutral global reserve asset could emerge, one that floats against all major currencies. Bitcoin and gold stand as contenders, with non-Western central banks already moving in this direction. * In the wake of Western sanctions on Russia, these institutions have ramped up gold purchases, diversifying their reserves away from the dollar. At the same time, the U.S. itself has explored how stablecoin providers (e.g., USDT) could finance Treasury debt—further legitimizing crypto and gold as alternative reserve assets. By detaching the reserve asset function from the dollar, Plaza 2.0 could allow for a weaker dollar without undermining the global financial system. Nations with large trade deficits—historically the U.S.—would no longer be forced to sustain an artificially high currency. The Short-Term Fix: Tariffs and Reshoring While Plaza 2.0 aims for structural adjustments, short-term measures will play a crucial role in expediting the transition. * Tariffs drive demand for U.S. goods. Tariffs will make imports more expensive, driving demand for domestically produced goods. * Reshoring rebuilds supply chains. Reshoring initiatives will help rebuild critical supply chains and create domestic jobs. * Tariffs generate revenue for fiscal relief. Revenue generation from tariffs will provide an additional funding source for government spending, reducing fiscal pressures. A Modern Plaza Accord? National Security as Leverage Plaza 2.0 will leverage national security concerns to reshape global trade partnerships. A direct intervention in currency markets—akin to the 1985 Plaza Accord—remains a possibility. The original Plaza Accord saw the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, and the U.K. coordinate to devalue the dollar. Plaza 2.0 could involve similar coordinated interventions: * Pressuring trade partners to align. Given their security reliance on the U.S., trade partners may have little choice but to comply with monetary adjustments, particularly as they are expected to step up their defense spending while America reduces its own commitments. * Reducing foreign dollar reserves. Trade partners may be encouraged (or pressured) to hold fewer U.S. dollar reserves, limiting America's reliance on foreign financing and reducing exposure to geopolitical risks. * Currency policy as a tool of economic warfare. The U.S. may actively purchase foreign assets, including gold and crypto, to drive up their value while devaluing the dollar—countering China’s strategic devaluation of the yuan and mitigating supply chain dependencies on adversarial nations. An Interregnum of Contradictions As the U.S. embarks on this economic transition, conflicting signals abound. The short-term will see a stronger dollar and higher yields—painful but necessary steps toward realignment. But in the medium term, the policy shift aims to usher in a lower dollar, lower yields, and sustainable, non-inflationary growth. Plaza 2.0 is not a return to protectionism. Nor is it a retreat from global leadership. Rather, it is a recalibration of America’s financial architecture—one that acknowledges the costs of dollar dominance and seeks a new equilibrium. For decades, the world has run on a system where the U.S. supplied dollars while exporting its industrial base. The next era will demand something different. Whether markets—and Washington—are prepared for the consequences remains to be seen.