The world is literally in flames, with dozens of conflict points — more than at any time since WWII.

The global order that defined the last half century — the period following the collapse of the East–West bipolar system — is now being rewritten. The post-1990 U.S. unipolar order is giving way to a multipolar world. I describe this transition in my book Bitcoindollar the dawn of American Hegemony in the Digital Era?

Transitions between global equilibria are never smooth. When a stable system collapses and a new equilibrium has not yet formed, the intermediate phase is inevitably chaotic. This is the phase we are living through today.

How long it will last and how violent it will become is impossible to predict. The complexity of the global system and the number of actors involved make the adjustment process inherently unstable.

On one side of the emerging geopolitical divide are nation-states such as China, Russia, India and other rising powers grouped around BRICS+. These entities function not only as political and economic structures but as cohesive nation-states built on shared identity, culture, and historical continuity. In such systems, the interests of the governing elites generally align with those of the broader population.

On the other side stand the former Western liberal democracies — the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada. These entities have now lost the cohesive social, cultural and religious identity that once defined them as nation-states. Their institutions have become heavily influenced by powerful global interest groups: the financial and banking sector, the tech & surveillance, the military-industrial complex, oil & gas, large media conglomerates and the pharmaceutical industry.

Without entering the details of the current geopolitical struggle, one key point explains why the coming phase of instability is causing the disappearance of reliable safe havens for international capital.

Historically, global investors could rely on certain jurisdictions as neutral and secure places to store wealth. This assumption is now breaking down.

We are witnessing not only a macro-level shift from a U.S.-dominated unipolar system to a multipolar world, but also an internal struggle within Western power structures themselves. Competing factions — financial interests, large asset-management groups, and the military-industrial complex — increasingly compete for influence over policy.

The result is instability not only between geopolitical blocs but also within the Western system itself.

For the first time in modern history, sovereign reserves of foreign countries have been seized or frozen by the jurisdictions in which they were held. Even during WWII or the Cold War this was largely avoided, precisely because it would undermine the credibility of financial safe havens.

Yet today we have seen US$ 300 billion Russian sovereign reserves frozen in Western institutions, Venezuelan gold assets seized, and threats directed at other countries’ reserves held abroad, including those held by Iran in Gulf states just now as a consequence of the latest US-Israeli aggression. Whether such threats are ultimately executed is almost irrelevant. Once they are made, the credibility of a safe haven like the UAE disappears.

Any sovereign, corporation or wealthy individual must now consider the possibility that their assets could be frozen due to geopolitical circumstances or nationality.

The deeper issue is structural. When powerful special-interest groups become deeply embedded within state power structures — particularly in systems that are no longer cohesive nation-states — policy decisions increasingly serve those interests rather than neutral legal frameworks.

Three consequences follow.

First, the geopolitical environment becomes structurally unstable. Clear alliances, predictable blocs and long-term coalitions weaken, replaced by fluid and often conflicting interests.

Second, there are no longer reliable safe havens for global capital. Any jurisdiction perceived as safe today can quickly change course under geopolitical pressure or internal power struggles.

Third, investors must fundamentally reconsider how and where capital can be stored safely.

This raises a simple but profound question: where can wealth be protected from geopolitical risk, counterparty risk and arbitrary confiscation?

Traditionally the answer would have been jurisdictions like Switzerland, or the UAE or Singapore. Today that assumption is gone.

Bitcoin introduces a radically different solution.

It is an asset that does not carry geopolitical risk tied to a specific jurisdiction, does not rely on a counterparty, has no self-custody costs, can be moved globally through the internet, and cannot be easily confiscated through traditional state mechanisms.

Critics often point to Bitcoin’s volatility. But volatility is largely a function of time horizon.

For investors with a multi-year perspective — three to four years or longer — Bitcoin has historically demonstrated strong characteristics as a store of value. Over shorter timeframes, however, investors must decide whether they are willing to tolerate its sometimes violent price fluctuations.

For the majority though gold remains still the traditional alternative. Yet, as the case of Venezuelan gold frozen in London demonstrates, it also carries notable risks. Physical gold requires secure storage and insurance, which impose significant costs. More importantly, it usually depends on a custodian and the jurisdiction in which it is stored — introducing both counterparty risk and geopolitical risk.

Even tokenized forms of gold, such as Tether Gold (XAUT), are essentially digital claims on physical bullion held by custodians. They therefore inherit the same underlying vulnerabilities.

History has already shown that even jurisdictions long considered neutral — including Switzerland — can freeze or seize assets under political pressure.

In a world entering a period of prolonged geopolitical uncertainty, these risks should not be underestimated.

If your priorities are self-sovereignty, frictionless movement of capital, portability across borders, resistance to arbitrary confiscation and a long-term investment horizon, then the rational choice is obvious: Bitcoin.

As geopolitical fragmentation intensifies, Bitcoin will increasingly become the rational reserve asset not only for individuals but also for sovereign states, multinational corporations and large pools of global capital seeking protection in an unpredictable world.

In such an environment, the definition of a safe haven is also changing. And for the first time in history, that safe haven is not a country. It is a censorship resistant, decentralized network grounded on energy, computing power, mathematics and cryptography.