From the perspective of gold and Bitcoin, the US dollar has entered a historical garbage time.

Author: Xiao Lei Looks at the World

In the past twenty years or so, whenever the US dollar has faced a significant depreciation cycle, there has always been talk of the dollar possibly heading towards collapse. However, often with a series of actions from the United States, a new appreciation cycle of the dollar emerges, rendering the viewpoint that the dollar is collapsing untenable. This has turned discussions and studies about the dollar in the market into a reinforcement of mutual biases, rather than a deeper consideration of the overall historical trajectory.

When we talk about the US dollar, we are not actually discussing the strength or weakness of the dollar. The real logic is that the dollar is the most important currency in the world and is a core point for studying and understanding many global economic and trade issues. Conversely, to understand the issues related to the dollar more thoroughly, one needs to start from other global issues rather than simply focusing on the dollar's short-term trends.

The United States is a very unique country because the entire operation and evolution of the United States has actually been completely "designed"; this is fundamentally different from most countries around the world that are based on historical inheritance and self-evolution.

I will give a simple example for everyone to understand. For instance, the United States has always defined itself as a country of immigrants. This statement is essentially a fundamental framework "design" on which many issues should be understood. Therefore, when we look at the United States' international relations and domestic education system, you will find that they are all based on the design of "immigration". The U.S. has good relations with certain regions, has close economic and trade connections, and is likely to have greater industrial transfer layouts in the future, which will lead to more openness to immigration from those countries or regions.

At the same time, many people say that the United States does not value basic education (on a public level, rather than an elite level), but in reality, as a country that can solve talent shortages through "immigration," the talent contributed by domestic basic education is not very "important." This means that basic education in the United States is not necessarily linked to the overall talent needs of the country. As long as the talent system on the "immigration" side does not have problems, even if basic education in the U.S. is poor, it will not affect the development of American industries and technology.

Therefore, to understand many of the most superficial social phenomena and operational models in the United States, we must first start from the top-level "design" of the country. In fact, understanding the issue of the US dollar follows the same reasoning.

One

What is currency actually used for? This question seems to be an economic common sense and an obvious aspect of daily life, but in reality, the question of what currency is used for has not been fully discussed even at an academic level.

I would like to provide everyone with a new perspective, as well as some conclusions that I have been thinking (or rather, pondering) about recently. For everyone's discussion.

Before 1972, when the dollar completely decoupled from gold, the evolution of human currency was largely related to "physical" items. The earliest origins of paper money can be traced back to the Song Dynasty in China, as at that time there were very powerful "money houses" distributed across China, and these entities became the credit guarantee for paper money.

If we say that the evolution of all human currencies before 1972 was inseparable from "physical objects", what does that imply? It implies that currency itself does not possess non-physical credit; currency is merely an accounting tool used to facilitate transactions. Anyone who uses currency to do business is essentially using currency to "make money", and often this is viewed as an "infringement" on the trade of "physical objects", which can harm the entire commercial system.

This is not my own understanding; it is globally recognized that the earliest Arab merchants, who excelled in global business, established the commercial system between Asia and Europe, translated and preserved ancient Greek classics, transformed Indian numerals into Arabic numerals, and spread Arabic numerals and geometry all over the world. In the religion they created, Islam, engaging in monetary business is prohibited, meaning you cannot lend money (you cannot earn interest).

This may seem inconceivable now, but if we understand it from the perspective that the "currency" business would infringe upon the "physical" transactions, as I just mentioned, it becomes clear why Islam, the only religion that originated from commercial trade, prohibits engaging in "currency" business in its teachings. This is not a coincidence.

Please note that if the credit source and function of "currency" have not changed, meaning that currency is based on "physical" credit and its function is merely an accounting tool, then all commercial profit-making activities based purely on currency that exist today will certainly harm other socio-economics, as this will lead to inaccurate pricing of goods and unfair creation and distribution.

However, many issues can still be analyzed from history. When Arab commercial dominance was at its peak globally, Jews were fundamentally excluded from physical commerce, as Arab merchants monopolized almost all tangible businesses. The "currency" trade, which was strictly prohibited and looked down upon by Arab commerce, was picked up by the Jews.

But the problem is that if the Jews only do "monetary" business based on the system of monetary "physical" credit endorsement and simple bookkeeping tools, there will be no second result, that is, they will be "spurned" by the physical business and squeezed out, and it is difficult for them to have continuity.

That being said, the key point comes here. The Jews were forced to create the third function of "money," and it is precisely this third function that not only allowed the pure money business to survive but can also be said to have almost changed the entire world.

Two

Turning over the history of Europe, the relationship between kings, religion, and currency is the most worth looking at together, the Jews were able to develop and grow on the European continent, and finally establish a global influence, and even the United States today is still difficult to get rid of the influence of the Jews, in fact, it is absolutely related to the third major function of the Jews to create money, so as to gain a foothold and grow on the European continent.

What is the third function of money created by the Jews? In fact, it is very simple to say, it is to solve the financial and debt problems of the state (formerly the king). Please keep this feature in mind.

When the kings of Europe often lose territory, lose the ability to command their subordinates, lose the possibility of victory in wars, and lose their resistance to religion due to finances and debts, what can help the kings solve their financial and debt issues? Assuming that currency is merely a tool for physical credit and accounting, then solving debt requires the creation of physical assets (gold or taxes), which brings us back to physical commerce and various power struggles (religion can sell indulgences, but kings cannot), and it may even trigger a larger social response.

However, the third function of money created by the Jews, that is, the ability to solve the debt problem, makes money an independent tool system, which can not only meet the functions of commercial trading entities, such as transactions and bookkeeping, but also magically solve the financial and debt dilemmas at the top level of state management.

Today, many of the "legends" we see have emerged, such as the Jewish consortium financing kings of various European countries, later financing different factions in wars, and helping various nations solve fiscal and debt issues, etc. This is essentially the Jewish people fully "understanding" the third major function of currency. Just like when we look at the country of Israel, its various霸道 (domineering actions) are disdained, but we rarely hear of Israel facing a debt crisis or running out of money during wars, etc. This has a significant historical connection to how the Jewish people utilize the third major function of currency.

It is precisely this feature that has changed the history of Europe and the world. Historic empires have emerged one after another, but the most direct reasons for the decline and predicament of most empires can almost all be traced back to finance and debt. However, if we look at the decline of empires such as the Netherlands, England, and France in modern history, none of them declined because of finance and debt, but rather because other capabilities at the national level could not keep pace with the rhythm of monetary problem-solving.

Three

Alright, back to the issue of the US dollar.

In fact, the top-level structure of the US dollar, which represents its true value to the United States, primarily revolves around its third function, which is to address the fiscal and debt issues of the US. The functions we usually consider most important for the dollar, such as credit and accounting, ultimately hold no significance for the US if they do not serve to resolve these fiscal and debt problems. Please note that I am saying this holds no significance, because the choice of currency does not make a significant difference; it is merely an accounting number.

Many discussions in the current market suggest that if the US dollar is used to address America's fiscal and debt issues, then the dollar will collapse and become unsustainable. This understanding is completely reversed. In other words, the dollar can only avoid collapsing if it resolves the fiscal and debt problems of the United States; only then will it have the underlying support that was originally designed.

What does this mean? It is a very important indicator for testing the modern sovereign credit currency. Essentially, it refers to the total sum of all phenomena and values that exist for this currency, and whether it can sustainably solve the fiscal and debt accumulation of this country. This is because addressing such a level of challenge itself is the use and effective mastery of the third major function of currency.

Looking at the internal financial and debt issues of many countries around the world today, they can actually be directly understood through the evaluation indicator of the third main function of currency. Similar to the inflation issues in Turkey (where interest rates are close to 45%) and various social issues in Argentina, these are manifestations of the inability of domestic currency to better resolve national financial and debt problems (the ultimate goal of the current Milei government in Argentina is to abandon the national currency and have the entire country use the US dollar). There are many smaller countries than Turkey and Argentina that face similar issues, which I will not list one by one.

If you return to the current United States and look at it based on the top-level design of the US dollar, you will find that the real problem with the dollar now is not fundamentally about depreciation or exchange rates, interest rate cuts, or who becomes the chair of the Federal Reserve. Instead, the current issue in the United States is that there is no longer the wisdom to use the dollar to solve American fiscal and debt problems. The approach to solving this problem has been lowered to a much lower dimension, which is a very traditional (inefficient) fiscal monetary system, such as imposing high tariffs or viewing fiscal deficits as a form of sin.

What does this mean? It means that almost all functions of the US dollar will be continuously weakened, similar to saying that the US used to rely on the ocean for fishing, but now it has started fishing in its own pond. The change is not about quantity, efficiency, or other issues, but rather that the pond only has a fixed amount, which is non-renewable.

Four

So why has the United States come to this point?

This brings us back to the third function of money, which is why today's dollar is no longer effective in addressing America's fiscal and debt issues.

To answer this question, a very important assumption must be made. Assume that a country's finance and debt are based on the solutions to the top-level development and distribution issues of that country. For example, much of China's finance and debt are derived from basic development, education, and poverty alleviation. At this point, using currency to solve financial and debt issues essentially completes the top-level development and distribution.

However, if we look at the United States in recent decades, the accumulation of its finances and debt is not actually based on its own development and distribution, but rather on wars and the instigation of wars, which in turn requires sustaining a large domestic "deep" government. In fact, the existence of the "deep government" itself is meant to more "smoothly" instigate wars, belonging to a parasitic group within the system of war and preparation for war (forming a vicious cycle).

At this time, if the United States seeks to address its fiscal and debt issues based on the third major function of the dollar, it is essentially not solving the problems of development and distribution within the U.S., but rather creating a form of sustainable dependency on war spending. This means that if the U.S. wants to thoroughly resolve its domestic fiscal and debt dilemmas, it will need to periodically prepare for a large-scale international war, which would allow for the external conversion of its fiscal and debt issues.

This is the fundamental reason why, during World War II, the United States was also a belligerent nation with significant losses, but before the war, the U.S. was a debtor country while the U.K. and others were creditor countries, and after the war, the U.S. became a creditor country while the U.K. and others became debtor countries. Furthermore, the debt deficit created by external wars can bolster domestic production while expanding the international circulation system of the dollar. This means that even if the war generates certain debts and deficits, it can, from the perspective of currency circulation, address the real demands for development and growth.

Therefore, the current fiscal and debt issues in the United States are a ticking time bomb for the world, as the ultimate direction for solving this problem will gradually shift towards war (rather than internal construction). As for various policy methods and strategies in other directions, they will gradually encounter rejection, resistance, and elimination. This is why almost every new U.S. government comes to power with ambitious domestic reform and various development policy plans, but in the end, these plans are almost always difficult to execute, ultimately culminating in the initiation of an external war.

This does not mean that all wars in the world are instigated by the United States, but rather that when we analyze the operational logic of the United States, you will find that for the U.S. government, the ease of initiating foreign wars and the sense of achievement gained from them is far greater than that of promoting domestic reforms, which are often more difficult and take longer.

Five

So what should the world do when facing another side of the United States? In fact, it is quite simple: if the whole world can suppress the possibility and impulse of war from breaking out and expanding, the United States' finances and debt can only be internalized, meaning they can only rely on their own adjustments to solve these issues. In the long run, this is actually beneficial for both the world and the United States.

From this perspective, as the arrival of a multipolar world occurs, the potential targets for the United States to launch wars against will become fewer rather than more, which will also reduce the U.S.'s war impulses.

The meaning of multipolarization does not refer to the emergence of more nominally independent entities at the national level, but rather that the entities that the United States can directly influence are decreasing. This means that the entities capable of direct military intervention are also decreasing.

Many people believe that the multiple wars in the Middle East initiated by the United States were due to these countries opposing the U.S. and having an "independent" pole outside of America. In fact, the opposite is true: it is precisely because the U.S. believes it can influence and resolve issues in these countries that it initiates wars. This means that the "independence" these countries have created is too weak, rather than too strong, and they cannot form a pole in the world.

Just like the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, why was the Trump administration eager to talk to Russia? Was it really to join forces with Russia against China? That is completely nonsense. The fact that this rhetoric obscures is that the United States cannot truly defeat Russia. Even with U.S. funding, Ukraine has not been able to defeat Russia to this day, forcing the U.S. to acknowledge Russia's "independence." This is the meaning of a multipolar world.

If there is a clear sign that Ukraine will soon defeat Russia in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, then think about it, will the United States still talk to Russia? Absolutely not. All political parties in the U.S. will just scramble for credit, arguing under which party's leadership the U.S.-backed Ukraine defeated Russia. This kind of "credit grabbing" discussion will dominate most of the public opinion market in the United States.

Of course, I am not discussing the nature of the Russia-Ukraine conflict here; that is two different matters.

If we return to the topic, which I have raised, the logic that the US dollar has entered a historical garbage time suggests that the United States can no longer easily find national entities for military strikes (excluding groups like the Houthis). The third major function of the dollar cannot effectively play out in the context of the US exerting extreme pressure globally, which means that the US's finances and debts can only "internalize" and cannot easily be replaced through war. The core function of the dollar in addressing US finances and debts is facing historic suppression.

Six

If the above refers to the military aspect, let's talk about the issue of manufacturing returning, which is also a hot topic in discussions about the U.S. economy and global trade.

Using the manufacturing sector's share to study the U.S. economy is actually very inaccurate, as it is still related to the design of the U.S. structure. When thinking about the manufacturing issue, one must consider a fundamental question: where does the U.S. panic about Chinese manufacturing actually come from? Is it because it has taken jobs from America's Rust Belt? Or is it because the share of Chinese manufacturing is too high?

In fact, none of this is true. Outside of China, 70% of global manufacturing is not controlled by China. As long as the United States can dominate the other 70% of global manufacturing, it remains the most powerful manufacturing country in the world. For example, the Dutch lithography giant ASML, among others, is still under U.S. control. So why is the U.S. still in a state of panic?

The reason is quite simple: it is China's 30% share of global manufacturing, which is not influenced by the United States, rather than that Chinese manufacturing has taken away American jobs or impacted American manufacturing, etc.

Why did former U.S. Treasury Secretary and former Federal Reserve Chair Yellen say that the return of American manufacturing is a daydream? What this reflects is not political bias, nor is it that American manufacturing truly cannot return, but rather from the perspectives of U.S. fiscal and monetary policy, as well as the various global architectural designs, the return of manufacturing to the U.S. is not necessarily a trendier or more beneficial thing for America's current and future development.

The Trump administration has gradually realized this point, and several key advisors are no longer emphasizing the return of manufacturing to the United States (they still have to mention it when facing domestic voters). This has also led to a significant directional change from the perspective of international cooperation. One example is Vice President Pence's visit to India, where he mentioned the "restructuring" of global manufacturing and supply chains, rather than "returning."

"Reshaping" aligns with the architectural design that the United States has always adhered to. Simply put, it refers to the re"transfer" of manufacturing and supply chains from Japan and Europe half a century ago to Southeast Asia, from Southeast Asia to mainland China, and from mainland China to India; this is the meaning of "reshaping." Wences is a guy with a notoriously foul mouth, but he has his own coherent system. He mentioned in India that if the United States does not unite with India, the 21st century will be "dark." This statement reflects the United States' "will" to reshape the supply chain and global manufacturing, but it also reveals its helplessness.

Seven

In the unipolar world of the past few decades, the global manufacturing and supply chain seem to be all over the world, but in fact, the entire top-level layout design is almost completely in the hands of the United States. At the same time, it is constantly transmitting this sense of insecurity to the people at the bottom of the United States, trying to find the legitimacy of all kinds of strange policies in this loss of control, so as to take extreme measures to "reshape" the global supply chain, which is why this US government believes that it is a "chosen one" and "has a great responsibility", and since it has been chosen by God, it must do things that others cannot do.

So what does this mean? From the dynamic perspective of economic trade, the global financial and currency flow system that China has locked in has challenged the United States' ability to "allocate" the dollar.

In the past, the United States could attack the entire global trade and industrial chain system of Japan and Germany at the same time, and also hit the vulnerable capital and financial markets in Latin America and Southeast Asia at the same time, so that the flow of global talents and capital can only flow to the United States in a one-way and irreversible manner, which will also help solve the financial and debt problems of the United States. It no longer flows into the United States in one direction, but into Europe and Japan, and the supply chain does not flow to a single country according to the intention of the United States, but into the system of dozens of developing countries around the world.

This makes the dollar enter the garbage time of history, in addition to the "multipolar world" that makes the United States have the ability to win, "fewer and fewer military targets", and one is that the United States has lost the ability to "reshape" the world's manufacturing and trade, at this time, it has to use tariff wars, etc., it is a big deal to return to the Americas and return to the United States to threaten each other, but this is actually the helplessness of the failure of the "reshaping" of global manufacturing and trade, which is the global architecture design of the dollar, and the accompanying use of "remodeling" The ability of global trade to address internal fiscal and debt problems has knock-on effects that cannot be ignored.

In fact, besides the "powerlessness" in the two aspects of military and global trade "reshaping," the entry of the dollar into the historical garbage time also requires a greater historical context of a technological and credit transformation era of human civilization that is not based on specific countries and international situations.

Eight

The transition of currency from primitive, regionally strong carriers like shells to gold and silver does not simply represent a change in the properties of currency carriers, but rather a change in the scope of consensus radiation.

If shells were used as currency, people living by the sea would benefit greatly, as shells are easy to collect, and the consensus is simply due to geographical differences. Gold and silver require exploration, collection, and refining, and their distribution is relatively even globally, which gives the process of obtaining gold and silver, as well as the attributes they carry, a universal consensus (making it somewhat fairer). However, like shells, gold and silver face a limitation of their own conditions, as their storage and transportation involve significant costs, and their supply lacks design-level flexibility. This suppresses the efficiency of the entire trade system globally, making it difficult to better and more quickly improve the living and trading conditions of various trade participants (it can only maintain and transfer), thus making trade very susceptible to interruptions due to settlement and payment cost issues, as well as uncertainties during the process.

When it comes to the stage of sovereign credit currency, that is, the stage of paper money, two important conditions must be met simultaneously. One is to meet the enormous consensus on currency in global trade, and the other is to resolve the financial and debt issues of paper money providers. In other words, one must satisfy the first and second major functional systems of currency, while the other must meet the third emerging function. In fact, meeting the enormous consensus in global trade is about addressing issues of security, efficiency, cost, and scale, while resolving the financial and debt issues of providers is about creating stability and sustainability for this paper currency.

So what kind of historical cycle has the world entered at this moment? The tariff wars and various forms of trade wars initiated by the United States that we see now seem to be based on trade figures, but essentially, they have little to do with trade itself.

It's like saying, one person sells eggs, and another person sells beef. The person selling eggs complains that every time they buy beef from the other person, it's always one or two hundred bucks, while every time the other person buys eggs from them, it's only a few bucks. Our relationship is seriously unbalanced, so from now on, you need to buy more of my eggs.

What does it mean? It means that the trade issues facing the world today are not based on trade logic, but rather on the logic of "opponents." The so-called trade surplus and trade deficit simply view the country, which has little to do with each specific transaction, as a purely transactional entity, leading to the conclusion that those with a trade surplus benefit, while those with a trade deficit lose. It's like saying that those who sell beef benefit, while those who sell eggs lose.

In fact, the real observation point of global trade is whether this global trade allows groups that previously had no access to products to now have access, and whether groups that were once unable to have enough food can now eat their fill. The scale of such groups improved by global trade is what really matters. This is similar to saying that no matter how great the invention of the steam engine is, if it cannot spread globally and be injected into larger-scale production and trade, it is difficult to trigger an industrial revolution, and its contribution to humanity would not be so significant. The historical role of the steam engine was realized through global trade, not through calculations of trade deficits or surpluses. At the time of Britain's technological explosion, there was actually a trade deficit with countries like China (Qing Dynasty).

Does this mean that because of global trade, some people are impacted, and this impact will ultimately end global trade? This needs to be viewed separately, as the best design of any economic model is based on protecting the vulnerable, addressing emergencies, and establishing growth. Many times, these three needs can conflict. To establish a longer-term virtuous cycle of development, it may lead to short-term emergencies and impacts on vulnerable groups. At this point, we do have a solution, which is the third major function of money. Based on solving fiscal and debt issues, the third major function of money will come into play, meaning that when conflicts arise among the three economic goals of virtuous cycles, fiscal and debt issues need to step in to resolve the problems.

The current mainstream discussion and solution to the problem is to treat finance and debt as issues themselves. However, from the perspective of global trade, which is essential for its continuity, it precisely requires the support of the finances and debts of various countries. Moreover, the tools to resolve finance and debt should not come at the expense of global trade.

If we look at how Japan survived the lost three decades relatively manageably, and how the European Union survived the huge debt and disintegration crisis that erupted in 2010, it is easy to see that it is the fiscal role played by monetary design. Today, when the United States wants to withdraw from the European security system and impose tariffs on the European Union, at this time, generally speaking, the EU and the euro should panic, and the world should sell the euro and short EU assets, but the fact is that when Germany and the EU have broken through the original financial constraints and begun to use the third major function of the euro to solve the financial and debt needs, the global confidence in the EU and the euro has not declined, but risen, the euro has continued to appreciate against the dollar, and the funds in the US capital market have flowed to Europe. If the EU does not operate in this way, but also wags a tariff war on the whole world, abandoning the use of the third major function of the euro, the EU economy, the euro and the European Commonwealth may collapse according to the EU's ability to withstand much weaker than the United States.

Nine

Does this mean that every country can use the third major function of currency to solve fiscal and debt problems? This is actually a generalization of discussions on many current issues. What global trade brings is precisely an opportunity for those countries that have already fallen into fiscal and debt problems to maintain the basic functions of their national currency through global trade without starting over, gradually solving their fiscal and debt issues.

What does it mean, that is, the large-scale economy that maintains global trade, or the economy that creates the main trading system, when using money to solve fiscal and debt problems, will actually reduce the dependence on trade "barriers", that is, there is no need to use tariffs to hinder the development of international trade, at this time, the continuity of global trade will be very strong, and many small and medium-sized economies can find better industrial and development opportunities through the continuity of global trade, domestic finance and debt, As well as monetary issues, there will be a certain space and time period for development and solution of problems.

From this perspective, if global powers truly want to launch a tariff war without regard for the consequences, it will be the small and medium-sized economies that will quickly face the impact, as these economies cannot rely on their own currencies to solve domestic fiscal and debt issues.

At this time, when the market is discussing currencies, it is easy to swing to extremes, either jumping from the US dollar to the Zimbabwean dollar in one go, or jumping from Bangladesh's finances and debts directly to the US's finances and debts. In fact, this instead fills the entire market with fear regarding the resolution of trade issues, causing the market to shift from an optimistic development model to a risk-averse model. This specifically manifests as entering into discussions and cognitive choices about the ultimate significance of global trade, thereby creating a new cycle of extremism.

As a result, history will revert to conservatism. Since trade only brings back paper money, and since paper money is just a pile of waste paper, so much labor has been spent creating and engaging in global trade, only to exchange it for a pile of waste paper, which fosters consumerism and impacts domestic employment, among other things. At the same time, everyone will forget the other values created by trade itself, such as global factor mobility, improvements in global production and living conditions, mutual reference and interweaving of global innovation, and the civilizational contributions of global wisdom in solving many human problems.

What kind of ultimate consequence will that lead to? It would be best to exchange for assets like gold in future trade, and global trade would effectively return to the inefficiency of hundreds of years ago. The world would transition from a trade-based production and competition stage to a stage of understanding currency and the release of a series of impacts.

In other words, when the stigmatization of global trade led by the United States reaches a certain level, many countries will naturally come to believe that global trade, especially the issues of unbalanced surpluses and deficits, brings not development and improvement to their countries, but disaster. At this point, global trade becomes a security issue, transforming into a problem of populism, political opportunism, and the hijacking of low-quality, scarce, and high-cost consumption.

Ten

So what does this have to do with the dollar entering the historical garbage time? In fact, it is very simple. When the United States promotes the global denial of the most fundamental value of global trade, it is actually leading the way in denying the role of the dollar and the historic consensus it created (most global trade is based on the demand for dollars). This pushes the global currency market historically toward a new era of currency multipolarity.

It can also be understood this way: the next global trade boom will either stem from a restructuring of the global trade framework or from the creation of a new monetary consensus system; otherwise, the world will enter a prolonged period of developmental "garbage time" (including information silos and stagnation in growth, while still boasting about itself, as already seen in the United States).

For example, Europe's trade was first based on the Mediterranean, later on Western Europe and Northern Europe, and then on North America and the Atlantic.

For the entire market, a more evident manifestation of specific technologies may be the collapse and re-collision of consensus on future monetary systems. For example, during the 2008 financial crisis in the United States, the global credit market was severely impacted, and in the same year, Bitcoin was born. It has developed to today, with the cryptocurrency industry now having a market value of several trillion dollars, and the trigger point for the rise of this technology and imaginary monetary system was the severe fluctuations in the dollar's credit at that time. However, as the dollar stabilized later, the entire cryptocurrency market did not disappear; at the same time, the most primitive gold also entered a historic spiral rise, continuing to this day.

The multipolarization of currency represents a highly unstable technological market era, where people begin to seek larger trading, storage, and value media with future currency attributes. During this time, the Euro, Pound, Yen, Renminbi, Gold, Bitcoin, and also the US Dollar, among others, will all become part of a coexistence era competing for consensus and interpretive power.

The euro is backed by a new model of global alliance development, the pound is supported by a strong continuity of modern state operation brand dividends, the yen represents a sophisticated manufacturing and service technology development model, the renminbi is underpinned by the world's largest single stable market and the largest entity trade creation system, and gold is a tool for resisting future risks; Bitcoin is an increasingly significant technological imagination of a monetary utopia; the dollar is an immediate expression of the U.S. addressing fiscal and debt issues through the third major function of the dollar.

Based on the above analysis and discussion system, my personal judgment is that (small talk) the US dollar has entered its historical garbage time. This does not mean that the dollar will not experience temporary rebounds in purchasing power or exchange rates, but rather that the global monetary consensus system surrounding the dollar, as well as its ability to address the most fundamental infrastructure issues in the United States, has gradually weakened. This weakening begins to undermine the global trade value concept and currency credibility. People continue to conduct global trade based on the dollar merely because they temporarily cannot find alternatives, rather than because the dollar has created an irreversible and optimal solution for global trade. At this point, the multipolarization from various dimensions such as political economy, trade, and security will gradually lead to monetary multipolarization. This is fundamentally irreversible for the dollar's international property monopoly consensus, marking the beginning of its historical garbage time.