In a world increasingly divided by economic blocs, political sanctions, and weaponized finance, neutrality in money has become more than a technical issue—it’s a philosophical and geopolitical challenge. As governments, economists, and institutions revisit ideas like Keynes’ Bancor—a global reserve currency designed to balance trade and reduce global financial imbalances—another idea stands in stark contrast: Bitcoin.
At first glance, Bancor and Bitcoin seem like solutions to the same problem: an overreliance on the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. But when it comes to neutrality, there’s only one winner. And it’s not the one designed in boardrooms.
The Bancor Vision: Multilateral, Balanced, and Political
In the 1940s, John Maynard Keynes proposed the Bancor—a supranational currency for international trade. It would be issued by a global institution, the International Clearing Union, and used to settle trade imbalances. The brilliance of the Bancor was that it penalized both deficit and surplus countries, encouraging sustainable trade and preventing the kind of debt spirals we see today.
This model was fairer than what we got instead—the dollar-based Bretton Woods system. But it was still political. Access to the system would be mediated by an international body. Participation would be managed. And in times of geopolitical conflict, countries could be excluded.
If a country can be blocked from using a financial system, the system is not neutral.
No matter how well-designed, no matter how multilateral, a system with gatekeepers can—and eventually will—be weaponized.
Bitcoin: Stateless, Permissionless, and Unstoppable
Bitcoin doesn’t promise balance. It doesn’t penalize surplus or deficit nations. It doesn’t care about trade flows, diplomacy, or sanctions. And that’s exactly why it’s the only candidate for neutrality.
- No one controls it.
- No one can be excluded.
- No political entity governs access.
It is stateless money, secured by code and consensus—not committees and constitutions.
If Russia, Iran, the U.S., or a dissident activist in exile wants to use Bitcoin, they can. There is no application process. No clearinghouse. No IMF vote. As long as they have access to the internet and computing power, they are in.
Bitcoin doesn’t care who you are. That is true neutrality.
Neutrality vs. Control: The Tradeoff
To understand why only Bitcoin is truly neutral, you have to accept this tradeoff:
Any system that can enforce rules can also exclude.
Bancor (or its modern derivatives, like IMF SDRs or proposed BRICS currencies) must be governed. And governance means power. Even if rules are transparent and decisions are multilateral, the ability to block a country during war—or pressure a participant into conformity—always exists.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, gives up control to preserve neutrality. It can’t enforce fairness. It can’t stop abuse. It can only guarantee access.
That may seem like a bug. But if you want a truly neutral monetary base layer, it’s a feature.
So What’s the Future?
The dream of Bancor still inspires internationalists, and rightfully so. A balanced, non-dollar global reserve system would reduce instability, dependency, and economic bullying. But unless it is stateless, permissionless, and decentralized, it will never be neutral. It will just be a softer empire with new rulers.
Bitcoin is flawed. It’s volatile. It doesn’t care about fairness. But it is neutral, in the way that math is neutral, or gravity is neutral. It doesn’t care who you are—and that, in a divided world, may be the most revolutionary idea of all.
Final Thought
If neutrality is the goal, Bitcoin is not an option. It is the baseline. Everything else is a compromise, no matter how well-intentioned.
Bonus: The Limits of Bitcoin’s Base Layer Neutrality
While Bitcoin offers unmatched neutrality today, it’s important to understand the practical limits of its base layer—especially when it comes to global-scale adoption.
The Bitcoin network can process approximately 220 million transactions per year (around 7 per second). That’s an incredibly limited resource when you consider the possibility of millions of banks, corporations, funds, and individuals all seeking to use Bitcoin for truly secure, international, high-value settlements.
As demand grows, so does the competition for block space. Fees would skyrocket, and block space would become incredibly valuable. In that world, only those with serious resources—likely states and megacorporations—would consistently secure space for their transactions.
And then comes the mining question: Bitcoin’s neutrality depends on a globally distributed mining network. If mining power becomes centralized in one or a few countries, those countries would gain an outsized ability to influence or censor the base layer—threatening Bitcoin’s claim to true international neutrality.
In short, while Bitcoin is designed to be neutral, its neutrality is not guaranteed—it must be defended through decentralization, competition, and ongoing global participation in mining and governance.
Bitcoin is neutral today. But to stay neutral, it must scale carefully, decentralize consistently, and resist capture by any single power—even its biggest supporters.
Explore More:
Leave a Reply