Why is the U.S. Embracing Crypto? The Answer May Lie in $37 Trillion Debt

By: blockbeats|2025/12/25 12:00:02
0
Share
copy
Original Article Title: Russia Says U.S. Planning $37 Trillion Crypto Reset
Original Article Author: Andrei Jikh
Original Article Translation: Dingdang, Odaily Planet Daily

At the recent Eastern Economic Forum held in Russia, one of Putin's closest advisors made a statement that sparked widespread attention. He stated that the United States is preparing to utilize cryptocurrency and stablecoins to devalue its massive $37 trillion national debt in an almost imperceptible manner.

His claim is that the U.S. is plotting to "move" this debt into a cryptographic system, achieving a systemic reset through what is referred to as a "crypto cloud," with the ultimate outcome being that other countries around the world foot the bill for this.

At first glance, this may sound like some kind of crazy theory. However, similar viewpoints have emerged before. MicroStrategy founder and billionaire Michael Saylor has previously publicly presented a highly controversial suggestion to Trump: sell all of America's gold and buy ="/wiki/article/bitcoin-btc-42">Bitcoin with the proceeds. By completely emptying the gold reserves and using the same funds to purchase 5 million bitcoins, you would effectively demonetize the entire gold asset class. Meanwhile, our rival nations happen to hold significant gold reserves. Their assets will tend to zero, while ours will expand to $100 trillion, enabling the U.S. to control both the global reserve capital network and the reserve currency system.

However, the question remains: Is this feasible? Is it really possible?

YouTuber Andrei Jikh, who has 2.93 million followers, dissected this in a video: What did Putin's advisor really say? And how could the U.S. potentially devalue its $37 trillion debt through stablecoins and Bitcoin? Odaily Planet Daily has compiled and translated the key points from this video.

The first question is: Who made these remarks?

The speaker is named Anton Kobyakov, a senior advisor to Russian President Putin who has been in office for over a decade. He is primarily responsible for articulating Russia's strategic narrative on important occasions like the Eastern Economic Forum.

In his speech, he explicitly stated: the United States is attempting to rewrite the rules of the gold and crypto markets, with the ultimate goal of propelling the global economic system into what he calls the "crypto cloud." Once the global financial system completes this transition, the U.S. can embed its massive national debt into structures of digital assets such as stablecoins, and then achieve a de facto "debt wipeout" through devaluation.

Second Question: What Does "Debt Devaluation" Actually Mean? How Does It Work?

Let's use an extremely simplified example to understand. Suppose the entire world's wealth is only worth a $100 bill. I borrowed this $100 and now owe the world's entire wealth, which I must repay.

The problem is, if I were to honestly repay the debt, I would have to return that $100 exactly as it was. However, luckily, I have a special "superpower" — I control the world's reserve currency issuance.

So, instead of returning the original $100, I magically print a new $100 out of thin air.

What is the result? The total currency in circulation in the world has changed from $100 to $200, but the quantity of goods, houses, and resources in the world has not increased.

As a result, the prices of everything begin to rise: properties, stocks, gold, especially things people desire, all become more expensive; what once cost $1 now requires $2. Everything becomes more expensive, but the supply of goods remains the same. This is inflation.

Now, when I return "that $100" to you, on the surface, I have fully repaid the debt, but in reality, the money you receive has lost half its purchasing power. I did not default, but I achieved debt devaluation through currency dilution.

Stablecoins Are Now Replicating This Old Script

However, what many people fail to realize is: this is one of the oldest and most common methods of debt repayment in human history. This is also how the United States has always repaid its debts.

Debt devaluation does not imply default and does not mean non-repayment. It merely reduces the real value of the debt through inflation or currency manipulation.

And this method has occurred time and time again throughout history. Post-World War II, in the heavy inflation of the 1970s, after the pandemic with massive money printing, all the same.

So, when a Russian advisor says that "the US might devalue its debt with cryptocurrency," he is not revealing any new mechanism but describing a method that the US has long been adept at.

The real innovation is: stablecoins that can diffuse this mechanism globally.

What needs to be clarified is: this is not about "directly converting the $37 trillion into stablecoins," but using USD stablecoins backed by US Treasuries to distribute the US debt structure to global holders. When the US dollar is diluted through inflation, the loss is shared by all holders of these stablecoins.

I want to mention something extremely important, which is also a foundational economic fact that many people overlook, and this is Jeff Booth's view: the natural state of the economy is actually deflationary. This means that if the world has only a fixed amount of currency, over time, with technological progress and increased production efficiency, goods will naturally become cheaper. Price deflation is the natural order. But reality is different, and the world we live in does not operate this way. There is only one reason: governments can create currency indefinitely.

When new money enters the system, this liquidity must "find a home" so it does not become worthless. Therefore, it is injected into assets such as real estate, stocks, gold, and Bitcoin. This is also why, in the long run, these assets seem to always be rising. But in reality, they are just maintaining their purchasing power, while the currency that underpins everything is becoming weaker. It's not that the assets are rising, but that the dollar is devaluing.

The True Value of Stablecoins: Distribution + Control

The question is, what if you could expand this superpower? What if you could scale the same trick internationally? This is where stablecoins come into play.

If the US can already devalue debt through regular inflation, what more can stablecoins do? The answer is two words: distribution + control.

Because when there is domestic inflation in the US, the economic pain is immediate: we see higher grocery bills, higher real estate prices, rising energy costs, and possibly higher interest rates to cool it down, with CPI and consumer price index reports rising, the US population becomes dissatisfied.

But stablecoins are different. Because stablecoins typically hold reserves in short-term US Treasuries, the demand for the US dollar and US Treasuries can actually increase as stablecoin adoption grows, making the whole thing self-reinforcing. When USDT, USDC are widely used globally, they are essentially holding a digital IOU backed by US Treasuries. This means that US debt financing is "virtually outsourced" to global users.

So, if the United States devalues its debt through inflation, the burden will fall not only on US citizens but it will also be "exported" globally through the stablecoin system. Thus, inflation becomes a kind of tax that all global stablecoin holders are collectively forced to bear. Because their digital dollars have also lost purchasing power. From a technical standpoint, today's system is the same. The dollar is ubiquitous around the world, but stablecoins will become a larger market and will exist on people's smartphones.

Another piece of the puzzle is that stablecoins can appear neutral because they can be created by private companies, not just the government. This means they do not come with the political baggage associated with the Fed or Treasury. Under the ENDCA, only approved issuers such as banks, trust companies, or non-bank companies that can receive special approval can issue regulated, dollar-backed stablecoins in the United States.

If Apple or Meta were willing, they could theoretically issue their own currency, such as the so-called "Metacoin." What is truly needed is not a technological breakthrough but rather political permission. To put it bluntly, as long as you show favor to the power core and invest enough capital, it is possible to obtain a license.

It is for this reason that stablecoins play such a crucial role in the U.S. debt dilution process. Essentially, they provide a level of control close to that of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) but without the need to carry the highly sensitive global label of CBDC.

-- Price

--

The Fatal Flaw of Stablecoins: Unverifiable Trust

But the problem is that other countries in the world do not buy into this. We have already seen this from the continuous large-scale buying of gold by central banks around the world.

Stablecoins claim to be pegged 1:1 to the dollar or U.S. Treasury bonds, theoretically, each circulating stablecoin should be backed by $1 in cash or an equivalent Treasury asset. But the real issue is: Neither individuals nor foreign governments can independently audit these reserves with 100% certainty.

Tether, Circle will issue reserve reports, but you must trust the issuer itself and you must trust the auditing entities, and almost all of these entities are within the U.S. system. When it comes to a trust issue involving trillions of dollars, this itself poses an extremely high barrier for nations.

Even if future blockchain technology could achieve real-time, transparent audits of stablecoin reserves, it still wouldn't solve a more fundamental issue — the U.S. always has the power to change the rules.

History has already provided a clear warning. The U.S. government once promised that the U.S. dollar could be redeemed for gold at any time, but in 1971, the Nixon administration unilaterally cut off this redemption option. From a global perspective, this was essentially a complete "rule reversal": the commitment remained, but redemption was ended by a "joking" remark.

Therefore, a digital token system built on "trust us" is unlikely to truly gain the world's trust. Technically, there is nothing to prevent the U.S. from making a decision in the future regarding stablecoins similar to the one where the U.S. unpegged the dollar from gold. This is the fundamental reason why there is widespread caution globally towards the new generation of digital currency systems.

So, the next question is: Will the U.S. actually do this in the end?

In my view, not only is this possibility real, it's even inevitable, as the U.S. has been experimenting with this idea, just not in the way we might think.

For example, Michael Saylor has publicly advocated to Trump and his family, proposing that the U.S. establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve. His vision was: if the U.S. were to sell gold, then massively buy Bitcoin, it could not only suppress the price of gold, weaken competitors like China and Russia, but also drive up the price of Bitcoin, reshaping the U.S. balance sheet.

However, this did not ultimately happen. Instead, during Trump's tenure, this idea of a U.S. Bitcoin reserve was merely mentioned and never truly materialized. U.S. officials have explicitly stated that they will not use taxpayer funds to purchase Bitcoin, at least not in a public capacity, and indeed, no related actions have been seen. So, I believe it will not happen in the way Michael Saylor publicly suggested.

However, this does not mean the story ends there. Because the government doesn't necessarily have to get involved directly to be part of it. The real "backdoor approach" lies in the private sector.

MicroStrategy has effectively become a "Bitcoin publicly traded company," under Michael Saylor's leadership continually accumulating Bitcoin, with their current holdings totaling hundreds of thousands of coins. So the question arises: If a public company were to first complete large-scale Bitcoin accumulation, would it be safer and more discreet than the government buying in directly?

This approach would neither be seen as central bank intervention nor immediately trigger global market panic. And when Bitcoin is truly established as a strategic asset, the U.S. government can easily gain Bitcoin exposure indirectly through equity stakes and holdings, just as it once held partial ownership of companies like Intel; this precedent already exists.

Instead of openly selling gold, engaging in billion-dollar Bitcoin trades, or forcefully promoting a stablecoin system, the smarter and more in-line-with-its-style approach for the U.S. is to let private enterprises conduct experiments first. Once a model is proven effective and significant to ignore, then the nation can absorb and institutionalize it at a federal level.

This method is more discreet, gradual, and offers more "plausible deniability" until one day, everything officially emerges.

Therefore, the key point I want to convey is: there are many ways for this to happen, and it is highly likely to happen. The assessment of that Russian advisor is not groundless—If the U.S. does indeed attempt to fundamentally address its national debt issue, then some form of digital asset strategy is almost an inevitable choice.

Original Article Link

You may also like

Soaring 50 times, with an FDV exceeding 10 billion USD, why RaveDAO?

What exactly is RaveDAO? Why is Rave able to rise so much?

1 billion DOTs were minted out of thin air, but the hacker only made 230,000 dollars

Liquidity saved Polkadot's life.

After the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when will the war end?

The US has taken away Iran’s most important card, but has also lost the path to ending the war

Before using Musk's "Western WeChat" X Chat, you need to understand these three questions

The X Chat will be available for download on the App Store this Friday. The media has already covered the feature list, including self-destructing messages, screenshot prevention, 481-person group chats, Grok integration, and registration without a phone number, positioning it as the "Western WeChat." However, there are three questions that have hardly been addressed in any reports.


There is a sentence on X's official help page that is still hanging there: "If malicious insiders or X itself cause encrypted conversations to be exposed through legal processes, both the sender and receiver will be completely unaware."


Question One: Is this encryption the same as Signal's encryption?


No. The difference lies in where the keys are stored.


In Signal's end-to-end encryption, the keys never leave your device. X, the court, or any external party does not hold your keys. Signal's servers have nothing to decrypt your messages; even if they were subpoenaed, they could only provide registration timestamps and last connection times, as evidenced by past subpoena records.


X Chat uses the Juicebox protocol. This solution divides the key into three parts, each stored on three servers operated by X. When recovering the key with a PIN code, the system retrieves these three shards from X's servers and recombines them. No matter how complex the PIN code is, X is the actual custodian of the key, not the user.


This is the technical background of the "help page sentence": because the key is on X's servers, X has the ability to respond to legal processes without the user's knowledge. Signal does not have this capability, not because of policy, but because it simply does not have the key.


The following illustration compares the security mechanisms of Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X Chat along six dimensions. X Chat is the only one of the four where the platform holds the key and the only one without Forward Secrecy.


The significance of Forward Secrecy is that even if a key is compromised at a certain point in time, historical messages cannot be decrypted because each message has a unique key. Signal's Double Ratchet protocol automatically updates the key after each message, a mechanism lacking in X Chat.


After analyzing the X Chat architecture in June 2025, Johns Hopkins University cryptology professor Matthew Green commented, "If we judge XChat as an end-to-end encryption scheme, this seems like a pretty game-over type of vulnerability." He later added, "I would not trust this any more than I trust current unencrypted DMs."


From a September 2025 TechCrunch report to being live in April 2026, this architecture saw no changes.


In a February 9, 2026 tweet, Musk pledged to undergo rigorous security tests of X Chat before its launch on X Chat and to open source all the code.



As of the April 17 launch date, no independent third-party audit has been completed, there is no official code repository on GitHub, the App Store's privacy label reveals X Chat collects five or more categories of data including location, contact info, and search history, directly contradicting the marketing claim of "No Ads, No Trackers."


Issue 2: Does Grok know what you're messaging in private?


Not continuous monitoring, but a clear access point.


For every message on X Chat, users can long-press and select "Ask Grok." When this button is clicked, the message is delivered to Grok in plaintext, transitioning from encrypted to unencrypted at this stage.


This design is not a vulnerability but a feature. However, X Chat's privacy policy does not state whether this plaintext data will be used for Grok's model training or if Grok will store this conversation content. By actively clicking "Ask Grok," users are voluntarily removing the encryption protection of that message.


There is also a structural issue: How quickly will this button shift from an "optional feature" to a "default habit"? The higher the quality of Grok's replies, the more frequently users will rely on it, leading to an increase in the proportion of messages flowing out of encryption protection. The actual encryption strength of X Chat, in the long run, depends not only on the design of the Juicebox protocol but also on the frequency of user clicks on "Ask Grok."


Issue 3: Why is there no Android version?


X Chat's initial release only supports iOS, with the Android version simply stating "coming soon" without a timeline.


In the global smartphone market, Android holds about 73%, while iOS holds about 27% (IDC/Statista, 2025). Of WhatsApp's 3.14 billion monthly active users, 73% are on Android (according to Demand Sage). In India, WhatsApp covers 854 million users, with over 95% Android penetration. In Brazil, there are 148 million users, with 81% on Android, and in Indonesia, there are 112 million users, with 87% on Android.



WhatsApp's dominance in the global communication market is built on Android. Signal, with a monthly active user base of around 85 million, also relies mainly on privacy-conscious users in Android-dominant countries.


X Chat circumvented this battlefield, with two possible interpretations. One is technical debt; X Chat is built with Rust, and achieving cross-platform support is not easy, so prioritizing iOS may be an engineering constraint. The other is a strategic choice; with iOS holding a market share of nearly 55% in the U.S., X's core user base being in the U.S., prioritizing iOS means focusing on their core user base rather than engaging in direct competition with Android-dominated emerging markets and WhatsApp.


These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, leading to the same result: X Chat's debut saw it willingly forfeit 73% of the global smartphone user base.


Elon Musk's "Super App"


This matter has been described by some: X Chat, along with X Money and Grok, forms a trifecta creating a closed-loop data system parallel to the existing infrastructure, similar in concept to the WeChat ecosystem. This assessment is not new, but with X Chat's launch, it's worth revisiting the schematic.



X Chat generates communication metadata, including information on who is talking to whom, for how long, and how frequently. This data flows into X's identity system. Part of the message content goes through the Ask Grok feature and enters Grok's processing chain. Financial transactions are handled by X Money: external public testing was completed in March, opening to the public in April, enabling fiat peer-to-peer transfers via Visa Direct. A senior Fireblocks executive confirmed plans for cryptocurrency payments to go live by the end of the year, holding money transmitter licenses in over 40 U.S. states currently.


Every WeChat feature operates within China's regulatory framework. Musk's system operates within Western regulatory frameworks, but he also serves as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is not a WeChat replica; it is a reenactment of the same logic under different political conditions.


The difference is that WeChat has never explicitly claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" on its main interface, whereas X Chat does. "End-to-end encryption" in user perception means that no one, not even the platform, can see your messages. X Chat's architectural design does not meet this user expectation, but it uses this term.


X Chat consolidates the three data lines of "who this person is, who they are talking to, and where their money comes from and goes to" in one company's hands.


The help page sentence has never been just technical instructions.


Parse Noise's newly launched Beta version, how to "on-chain" this heat?

Noise is planning to launch its mainnet on Base in the coming months, at which point the platform will be open to everyone and support real-money trading.

Is Lobster a Thing of the Past? Unpacking the Hermes Agent Tools that Supercharge Your Throughput to 100x

The longer you use it, the smarter it gets, what makes Hermes, where developers have migrated to, special?

Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more