Skip to main content

From Reserve Currency to Shared World Order: The Future of Global Finance

By Matthew Hayward

The development of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) by major economies, such as China, the US, and the European Union, is reshaping the global monetary system and contributing to the emergence of a new shared world order that utilizes a couple of different currencies instead of relying on a single global Reserve currency. This shift will be an incremental step toward establishing a one-world government.

The rationale for this updated hypothesis could be based on the following points:

The development of CBDCs represents a significant innovation in monetary policy. It has the potential to transform the way in which payments and financial transactions are conducted globally.

CBDCs may offer several advantages over traditional fiat currencies, such as greater efficiency, security, and accessibility, as well as the ability to facilitate cross-border transactions and reduce transaction costs.

The development of CBDCs is being driven by major economies, such as China, the US, and the European Union, which seek to maintain their influence and competitiveness in the global financial system and reduce their dependence on the US dollar.

The emergence of multiple CBDCs may lead to the creation of a more diversified and balanced global monetary system that reduces the risk of currency volatility, inflation, and financial instability.

The development of CBDCs may also contribute to establishing a more integrated and interconnected global financial system that promotes greater collaboration and coordination among nations and paves the way for the eventual establishment of a one-world government.

However, transitioning to a new shared world order based on CBDCs may face significant challenges and risks, such as the need for interoperability and harmonization among different CBDC systems, the potential impact on privacy and security, and the possibility of creating new forms of financial inequality and exclusion.

The transition to a new shared world order based on CBDCs faces significant challenges in terms of public acceptance. Many people worldwide may reject CBDCs due to concerns about digital tyranny, authoritarianism, and a lack of trust in governments and banks. These concerns stem from the potential loss of privacy and anonymity in financial transactions, the risk of government surveillance and control, and the possibility of technical failures and cyberattacks that could compromise the integrity and security of CBDC systems.

The success of this shift will depend not only on technical and economic factors but also on social and cultural factors that shape public perceptions and attitudes toward CBDCs. To address these challenges, policymakers and stakeholders must engage in transparent and inclusive dialogue with the public, provide clear and accurate information about the benefits and risks of CBDCs, and design CBDC systems that prioritize privacy, security, and user empowerment. 

Given the potential challenges to public acceptance of CBDCs, policymakers and stakeholders may initially focus on winning over a small number of early adopters willing to embrace CBDCs voluntarily. As more people become familiar with the benefits and features of CBDCs, and as the adoption of CBDCs becomes more widespread in different areas of society, it becomes a de facto requirement for conducting many financial transactions and participating in the global economy. However, the ultimate success of CBDCs will depend on the ability of policymakers and stakeholders to address public concerns about privacy, security, and control and to ensure that the benefits of CBDCs are widely shared and distributed among all nations and peoples.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...