TheDinarian
News • Business • Investing & Finance
🌐Multipolar World Order – Part 1🌐
September 24, 2022
post photo preview

Russia’s war with Ukraine is first and foremost a tragedy for the people of both countries, especially those who live—and die—in the battle zones. The priority for humanity, though apparently not for the political class, is to encourage Moscow and Kyiv to stop killing men, women and children and negotiate a peace deal.

Beyond the immediate confines of the conflict, the war is also seen by some as representative of an alleged clash between great powers and, perhaps, between civilisations. All wars are momentous, but the ramifications of Ukrainian war are already global.

Consequently, there is a perception that it is the focal point of a confrontation between two distinct models of global governance. The NATO-led alliance of the Western nations continues to push the unipolar, G7, international rules-based order (IRBO). It is opposed, some say, by the Russian and Chinese-led BRICS and the G20-based multipolar world order.

In this 3 part series we will explore these issues and consider if it is tenable to place our faith in the emerging multipolar world order.

There are very few redeeming features of the unipolar world order, that’s for sure. It is a system that overwhelmingly serves capital and few people other than a “parasite class” of stakeholder capitalist eugenicists. This has led many disaffected Westerners to invest their hopes in the promise of the multipolar world order:

Many have increasingly come to terms with the reality that today’s multipolar system led by Russia and China has premised itself upon the defense of international law and national sovereignty as outlined in the UN Charter. [. . .] Putin and Xi Jinping have [. . .] made their choice to stand for win-win cooperation over Hobbesian Zero Sum thinking. [. . .] [T]heir entire strategy is premised upon the UN Charter.

If only that were so! Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be the case. But even if it were true, Putin and Xi Jinping basing “their entire strategy” upon the UN Charter, would be cause for concern, not relief.

For the globalist forces that see nation-states as squares on the grand chessboard and that regard leaders like Putin, Biden and Xi Jinping as accomplices, the multipolar world order is manna from heaven. They have spent more than a century trying to centralise global power. The power of individual nation-states at least presents the possibility of some decentralisation. The multipolar world order finally ends all national sovereignty and delivers true global governance.

WORLD ORDER

We need to distinguish between the ideological concept of “world order” and the reality. This will help us identify where “world order” is an artificially imposed construct.

Authoritarian power, wielded over populations, territory and resources, restricted by physical and political geography, dictates the “world order.” The present order is largely the product of hard-nosed geopolitics, but it also reflects the various attempts to impose a global order.

The struggle to manage and mitigate the consequences of geopolitics is evident in the history of international relations. For nearly 500 years nation-states have sought to co-exist as sovereign entities. Numerous systems have been devised to seize control of what would otherwise be anarchy. It is very much to the detriment of humanity that anarchy has not been allowed to flourish.

In 1648, the two bilateral treaties that formed the Peace of Westphalia concluded the 30 Years War (or Wars). Those negotiated settlements arguably established the precept of the territorial sovereignty within the borders of the nation-state.

This reduced, but did not end, the centralised authoritarian power of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Britannica notes:

The Peace of Westphalia recognized the full territorial sovereignty of the member states of the empire.

This isn’t entirely accurate. That so-called “full territorial sovereignty” delineated regional power within Europe and the HRE, but full sovereignty wasn’t established.

The Westphalian treaties created hundreds of principalities that were formerly controlled by the central legislature of the HRE, the Diet. These new, effectively federalised principalities still paid taxes to the emperor and, crucially, religious observance remained a matter for the empire to decide. The treaties also consolidated the regional power of the Danish, Swedish, and French states but the Empire itself remained intact and dominant.

It is more accurate to say that the Peace of Westphalia somewhat curtailed the authoritarian power of the HRE and defined the physical borders of some nation states. During the 20th century, this led to the popular interpretation of the nation-state as a bulwark against international hegemonic power, despite that never having been entirely true.

Consequently, the so-called “Westphalian model” is largely based upon a myth. It represents an idealised version of the world order, suggesting how it could operate rather than describing how it does.

If nation-states really were sovereign and if their territorial integrity were genuinely respected, then the Westphalian world order would be pure anarchy. This is the ideal upon which the UN is supposedly founded because, contrary to another ubiquitous popular myth, anarchy does not mean “chaos.” Quite the opposite.

Anarchy is exemplified by Article 2.1 of the UN Charter:

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

The word “anarchy” is an abstraction of the classical Greek “anarkhos,” meaning “rulerless.” This is derived from the privative prefix “an” (without) in conjunction with “arkhos” (leader or ruler). Literally translated, “anarchy” means “without rulers”—what the UN calls “sovereign equality.”

A Westphalian world order of sovereign nation-states, each observing the “equality” of all others while adhering to the non-aggression principle, is a system of global, political anarchy. Unfortunately, that is not the way the current UN “world order” functions, nor has there ever been any attempt to impose such an order. What a shame.

Within the League of Nations and subsequent UN system of practical “world order,”—a world order allegedly built upon the sovereignty of nations—equality exists in theory only. Through empire, colonialism, neocolonialism—that is, through economic, military, financial and monetary conquest, coupled with the debt obligations imposed upon targeted nations—global powers have always been able to dominate and control lesser ones.

National governments, if defined in purely political terms, have never been the only source of authority behind the efforts to construct world order. As revealed by Antony C. Sutton and others, private corporate power has aided national governments in shaping “world order.”

Neither Hitler’s rise to power nor the Bolshevik Revolution would have occurred as they did, if at all, without the guidance of the Wall Street financiers. The bankers’ global financial institutions and extensive international espionage networks were instrumental in shifting global political power.

These private-sector “partners” of government are the “stakeholders” we constantly hear about today. The most powerful among them are fully engaged in “the game” described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard.

Brzezinski recognised that the continental landmass of Eurasia was the key to genuine global hegemony:

This huge, oddly shaped Eurasian chess board—extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok—provides the setting for “the game.” [. . .] [I]f the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity [. . .] then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. [. . .] That mega-continent is just too large, too populous, culturally too varied, and composed of too many historically ambitious and politically energetic states to be compliant toward even the most economically successful and politically pre-eminent global power. [. . .] Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. [. . .] [I]t would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.

The “unipolar world order” favoured by the Western powers, often referred to as the “international rules-based order” or the “international rules-based system,” is another attempt to impose order. This “unipolar” model enables the US and its European partners to exploit the UN system to claim legitimacy for their games of empire. Through it, the transatlantic alliance has used its economic, military and financial power to try to establish global hegemony.

In 2016, Stewart Patrick, writing for the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a foreign policy think tank, published World Order: What, Exactly, are the Rules? He described the post-WWII “international rules-based order” (IRBO):

What sets the post-1945 Western order apart is that it was shaped overwhelmingly by a single power [a unipolarity], the United States. Operating within the broader context of strategic bipolarity, it constructed, managed, and defended the regimes of the capitalist world economy. [. . .] In the trade sphere, the hegemon presses for liberalization and maintains an open market; in the monetary sphere, it supplies a freely convertible international currency, manages exchange rates, provides liquidity, and serves as a lender of last resort; and in the financial sphere, it serves as a source of international investment and development.

The idea that the aggressive market acquisition of crony capitalism somehow represents the “open markets” of the “capitalist world economy” is risible. It is about as far removed from free market capitalism as it is possible to be. Under crony capitalism, the US dollar, as the preferred global reserve currency, is not “freely convertible.” Exchange rates are manipulated and liquidity is debt for nearly everyone except the lender. “Investment and development” by the hegemon means more profits and control for the hegemon.

The notion that a political leader, or anyone for that matter, is entirely bad or good, is puerile. The same consideration can be given to nation-states, political systems or even models of world order. The character of a human being, a nation or a system of global governance is better judged by their or its totality of actions.

Whatever we consider to be the source of “good” and “evil,” it exists in all of us at either ends of a spectrum. Some people exhibit extreme levels of psychopathy, which can lead them to commit acts that are judged to be “evil.” But even Hitler, for example, showed physical courage, devotion, compassion for some, and other qualities we might consider “good.”

Nation-states and global governance structures, though immensely complex, are formed and led by people. They are influenced by a multitude of forces. Given the added complications of chance and unforeseen events, it is unrealistic to expect any form of “order” to be either entirely good or entirely bad.

That being said, if that “order” is iniquitous and causes appreciable harm to people, then it is important to identify to whom that “order” provides advantage. Their potential individual and collective guilt should be investigated.

This does not imply that those who benefit are automatically culpable, nor that they are “bad” or “evil,” though they may be, only that they have a conflict of interests in maintaining their “order” despite the harm it causes. Equally, where systemic harm is evident, it is irrational to absolve the actions of the people who lead and benefit from that system without first ruling out their possible guilt.

Since WWII, millions of innocents have been murdered by the US, its international allies and its corporate partners, all of whom have thrown their military, economic and financial weight around the world. The Western “parasite class” has sought to assert its IRBO by any means necessary— sanctions, debt slavery or outright slavery, physical, economic or psychological warfare. The grasping desire for more power and control has exposed the very worst of human nature. Repeatedly and ad nauseam.

Of course, resistance to this kind of global tyranny is understandable. The question is: Does imposition of the multipolar model offer anything different?

OLIGARCHY

Most recently, the “unipolar world order” has been embodied by the World Economic Forum’s inappropriately named Great Reset. It is so malignant and forbidding that some consider the emerging “multipolar world order” salvation. They have even heaped praise upon the likely leaders of the new multipolar world:

It is [. . .] strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. [. . .] Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs. [. . .] Together [Russia and China] told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived. [. . .] Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.

Sadly, it seems this hope is also misplaced.

While Putin did much to rid Russia of the CIA-run, Western-backed oligarchs who were systematically destroying the Russian Federation during the 1990s, they have subsequently been replaced by another band of oligarchs with closer links to the current Russian government. Something we will explore in Part 3.

Yes, it is certainly true that the Russian government, led by Putin and his power bloc, has improved the incomes and life opportunities for the majority of Russians. Putin’s government has also significantly reduced chronic poverty in Russia over the last two decades.

Wealth in Russia, measured as the market value of financial and non-financial assets, has remained concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of the population. This pooling of wealth among the top percentile is itself stratified and is overwhelmingly held by the top 1% of the 1%. For example, in 2017, 56% of Russian wealth was controlled by 1% of the population. The pseudopandemic of 2020–2022 particularly benefitted Russian billionnaires—as it did the billionaires of every other developed economy.

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2021, wealth inequality in Russia, measured using the Gini coefficient, was 87.8 in 2020. The only other major economy with a greater disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population was Brazil. Just behind Brazil and Russia on the wealth inequality scale was the US, whose Gini coefficient stood at 85.

In terms of wealth concentration however, the situation in Russia was the worst by a considerable margin. In 2020 the top 1% owned 58.2% of Russia’s wealth. This was more than 8 percentage points higher than Brazil’s wealth concentration, and significantly worse than wealth concentration in the US, which stood at 35.2% in 2020.

Such disproportionate wealth distribution is conducive to creating and empowering oligarchs. But wealth alone doesn’t determine whether one is an oligarch. Wealth needs to be converted into political power for the term “oligarch” to be applicable. An oligarchy is defined as “a form of government in which supreme power is vested in a small exclusive class.”

Members of this dominant class are installed through a variety of mechanisms. The British establishment, and particularly its political class, is dominated by men and women who were educated at Eton, Roedean, Harrow and St. Pauls, etc. This “small exclusive class” arguably constitutes a British oligarchy. The UK’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has been heralded by some because she is not a graduate of one of these select public schools.

Educational privilege aside, though, the use of the word “oligarch” in the West more commonly refers to an internationalist class of globalists whose individual wealth sets them apart and who use that wealth to influence policy decisions.

Bill Gates is a prime example of an oligarch. The former advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Dominic Cummings, said as much during his testimony to a parliamentary committee on May 2021 (go to 14:02:35). As Cummings put it, Bill Gates and “that kind of network” had directed the UK government’s response to the supposed COVID-19 pandemic.

Gates’ immense wealth has bought him direct access to political power beyond national borders. He has no public mandate in either the US or the UK. He is an oligarch—one of the more well known but far from the only one.

CFR member David Rothkopf described these people as a “Superclass” with the ability to “influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis.” They do this, he said, by using their globalist “networks.” Those networks, as described by Antony C. Sutton, Dominic Cummings and others, act as “the force multiplier in any kind of power structure.”

This “small exclusive class” use their wealth to control resources and thus policy. Political decisions, policy, court rulings and more are made at their behest. This point was highlighted in the joint letter sent by the Attorneys General (AGs) of 19 US states to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

The AGs observed that BlackRock was essentially using its investment strategy to pursue a political agenda:

The Senators elected by the citizens of this country determine which international agreements have the force of law, not BlackRock.

Their letter describes the theoretical model of representative democracy. Representative democracy is not a true democracy—which decentralises political power to the individual citizen—but is rather a system designed to centralise political control and authority. Inevitably, “representative democracy” leads to the consolidation of power in the hands of the so-called “Superclass” described by Rothkopf.

There is nothing “super” about them. They are ordinary people who have acquired wealth primarily through conquest, usury, market rigging, political manipulation and slavery. “Parasite class” is a more befitting description.

Not only do global investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street use their immense resources to steer public policy, but their major shareholders include the very oligarchs who, via their contribution to various think tanks, create the global political agendas that determine policy in the first place. There is no space in this system of alleged “world order” for any genuine democratic oversight.

As we shall see in Part 3, the levers of control are exerted to achieve exactly the same effect in Russia and China. Both countries have a gaggle of oligarchs whose objectives are firmly aligned with the WEF’s Great Reset agenda. They too work with their national government “partners” to ensure that they all arrive at the “right” policy decisions.

THE UNITED NATIONS’ MODEL OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Any bloc of nations that bids for dominance within the United Nations is seeking global hegemony. The UN enables global governance and centralises global political power and authority. In so doing, the UN empowers the international oligarchy.

As noted previously, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter declares that the UN is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The Charter then goes on to list the numerous ways in which nation-states are not equal. It also clarifies how they are all subservient to the UN Security Council.

Despite all the UN’s claims of lofty principles—respect for national sovereignty and for alleged human rights—Article 2 declares that no nation-state can receive any assistance from another as long as the UN Security Council is forcing that nation-state to comply with its edicts. Even non-member states must abide by the Charter, whether they like it or not, by decree of the United Nations.

The UN Charter is a paradox. Article 2.7 asserts that “nothing in the Charter” permits the UN to infringe the sovereignty of a nation-state—except when it does so through UN “enforcement measures.” The Charter states, apparently without reason, that all nation-states are “equal.” However, some nation-states are empowered by the Charter to be far more equal than others.

While the UN’s General Assembly is supposedly a decision-making forum comprised of “equal” sovereign nations, Article 11 affords the General Assembly only the power to discuss “the general principles of co-operation.” In other words, it has no power to make any significant decisions.

Article 12 dictates that the General Assembly can only resolve disputes if instructed to do so by the Security Council. The most important function of the UN, “the maintenance of international peace and security,” can only be dealt with by the Security Council. What the other members of the General Assembly think about the Security Council’s global “security” decisions is a practical irrelevance.

Article 23 lays out which nation-states form the Security Council:

The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [Russian Federation], the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council. [. . .] The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years.

The General Assembly is allowed to elect “non-permanent” members to the Security Council based upon criteria stipulated by the Security Council. Currently the “non-permanent” members are Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway and the United Arab Emirates.

Article 24 proclaims that the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” and that all other nations agree that “the Security Council acts on their behalf.” The Security Council investigates and defines all alleged threats and recommends the procedures and adjustments for the supposed remedy. The Security Council dictates what further action, such as sanctions or the use of military force, shall be taken against any nation-state it considers to be a problem.

Article 27 decrees that at least 9 of the 15 member states must be in agreement for a Security Council resolution to be enforced. All of the 5 permanent members must concur, and each has the power of veto. Any Security Council member, including permanent members, shall be excluded from the vote or use of its veto if they are party to the dispute in question.

UN member states, by virtue of agreeing to the Charter, must provide armed forces at the Security Council’s request. In accordance with Article 47, military planning and operational objectives are the sole remit of the permanent Security Council members through their exclusive Military Staff Committee. If the permanent members are interested in the opinion of any other “sovereign” nation, they’ll ask it to provide one.

The inequality inherent in the Charter could not be clearer. Article 44 notes that “when the Security Council has decided to use force” its only consultative obligation to the wider UN is to discuss the use of another member state’s armed forces where the Security Council has ordered that nation to fight. For a country that is a current member of the Security Council, use of its armed forces by the Military Staff Committee is a prerequisite for Council membership.

The UN Secretary-General, identified as the “chief administrative officer” in the Charter, oversees the UN Secretariat. The Secretariat commissions, investigates and produces the reports that allegedly inform UN decision-making. The Secretariat staff members are appointed by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is “appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Under the UN Charter, then, the Security Council is made king. This arrangement affords the governments of its permanent members—China, France, Russia, the UK and the US—considerable additional authority. There is nothing egalitarian about the UN Charter.

The suggestion that the UN Charter constitutes a “defence” of “national sovereignty” is ridiculous. The UN Charter is the embodiment of the centralisation of global power and authority.

THE UNITED NATIONS’ GLOBAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

The UN was created, in no small measure, through the efforts of the private sector Rockefeller Foundation (RF). In particular, the RF’s comprehensive financial and operational support for the Economic, Financial and Transit Department (EFTD) of the League of Nations (LoN), and its considerable influence upon the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), made the RF the key player in the transformation of the LoN into the UN.

The UN came into being as a result of public-private partnership. Since then, especially with regard to defence, financing, global health care and sustainable development, public-private partnerships have become dominant within the UN system. The UN is no longer an intergovernmental organisation, if it ever was one. It is a global collaboration between governments and a multinational infra-governmental network of private “stakeholders.”

In 1998, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the World Economic Forum’s Davos symposium that a “quiet revolution” had occurred in the UN during the 1990s:

[T]he United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a “quiet revolution”. [. . .] [W]e are in a stronger position to work with business and industry. [. . .] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. [. . .] We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment. We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation.

In 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO), a specialised agency of the UN, published a report on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in healthcare titled Connecting for Health. Speaking about how “stakeholders” could introduce ICT healthcare solutions globally, the WHO noted:

Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.

The 2015, Adis Ababa Action Agenda conference on “financing for development” clarified the nature of an “enabling environment.” National governments from 193 UN nation-states committed their respective populations to funding public-private partnerships for sustainable development by collectively agreeing to create “an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development;” and “to further strengthen the framework to finance sustainable development.”

In 2017, UN General Assembly Resolution 70/224 (A/Res/70/224) compelled UN member states to implement “concrete policies” that “enable” sustainable development. A/Res/70/224 added that the UN:

[. . .] reaffirms the strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development [—] particularly with regard to developing partnerships through the provision of greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society in general.

In short, the “enabling environment” is a government, and therefore taxpayer, funding commitment to create markets for the private sector. Over the last few decades, successive Secretary-Generals have overseen the UN’s formal transition into a global public-private partnership (G3P).

Nation-states do not have sovereignty over public-private partnerships. Sustainable development formally relegates government to the role of an “enabling” partner within a global network comprised of multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and other actors. The “other actors” are predominantly the philanthropic foundations of individual billionaires and immensely wealthy family dynasties—that is, oligarchs.

Effectively, then, the UN serves the interests of capital. Not only is it a mechanism for the centralisation of global political authority, it is committed to the development of global policy agendas that are “business-friendly.” That means Big Business-friendly. Such agendas may happen to coincide with the best interests of humanity, but where they don’t—which is largely the case—well, that’s just too bad for humanity.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

On the 4th February 2022, a little less then three weeks prior to Russia launching its “special military operation” in Ukraine, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping issued an important joint statement:

The sides [Russian Federation and Chinese People’s Republic] strongly support the development of international cooperation and exchanges [. . .], actively participating in the relevant global governance process, [. . .] to ensure sustainable global development. [. . .] The international community should actively engage in global governance[.] [. . .] The sides reaffirmed their intention to strengthen foreign policy coordination, pursue true multilateralism, strengthen cooperation on multilateral platforms, defend common interests, support the international and regional balance of power, and improve global governance. [. . .] The sides call on all States [. . .] to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) defined “global governance” in its 2014 publication Global Governance and the Global Rules For Development in the Post 2015 Era:

Global governance encompasses the totality of institutions, policies, norms, procedures and initiatives through which States and their citizens try to bring more predictability, stability and order to their responses to transnational challenges.

Global governance centralises control over the entire sphere of international relations. It inevitably erodes a nation’s ability to set foreign policy. As a theoretical protection against global instability, this isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but in practice it neither enhances nor “protects” national sovereignty.

Domination of the global governance system by one group of powerful nation-states represents possibly the most dangerous and destabilising force of all. It allows those nations to act with impunity, regardless of any pretensions about honouring alleged “international law.”

Global governance also significantly curtails the independence of a nation-state’s domestic policy. For example, the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda 21, with the near-time Agenda 2030 serving as a waypoint, impacts nearly all national domestic policy—even setting the course for most domestic policy—in every country.

National electorates’ oversight of this “totality” of UN policies is weak to nonexistent. Global governance renders so-called “representative democracy” little more than a vacuous sound-bite.

As the UN is a global public-private partnership (UN-G3P), global governance allows the “multi-stakeholder partnership”—and therefore oligarchs—significant influence over member nation-states’ domestic and foreign policy. Set in this context, the UN-DESA report (see above) provides a frank appraisal of the true nature of UN-G3P global governance:

Current approaches to global governance and global rules have led to a greater shrinking of policy space for national Governments [. . . ]; this also impedes the reduction of inequalities within countries. [. . .] Global governance has become a domain with many different players including: multilateral organizations; [. . .] elite multilateral groupings such as the Group of Eight (G8) and the Group of Twenty (G20) [and] different coalitions relevant to specific policy subjects[.] [. . .] Also included are activities of the private sector (e.g., the Global Compact) non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and large philanthropic foundations (e.g., Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Turner Foundation) and associated global funds to address particular issues[.] [. . .] The representativeness, opportunities for participation, and transparency of many of the main actors are open to question. [. . .] NGOs [. . .] often have governance structures that are not subject to open and democratic accountability. The lack of representativeness, accountability and transparency of corporations is even more important as corporations have more power and are currently promoting multi-stakeholder governance with a leading role for the private sector. [. . .] Currently, it seems that the United Nations has not been able to provide direction in the solution of global governance problems—perhaps lacking appropriate resources or authority, or both. United Nations bodies, with the exception of the Security Council, cannot make binding decisions.

A/Res/73/254 declares that the UN Global Compact Office plays a vital role in “strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to partner strategically with the private sector.” It adds:

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development acknowledges that the implementation of sustainable development will depend on the active engagement of both the public and private sectors[.]

While the Attorneys General of 19 states might rail against BlackRock for usurping the political authority of US senators, BlackRock is simply exercising its power as valued a “public-private partner” of the US government. Such is the nature of global governance. Given that this system has been constructed over the last 80 years, it’s a bit too late for 19 state AGs to complain about it now. What have they been doing for the last eight decades?

The governmental “partners” of the UN-G3P lack “authority” because the UN was created, largely by the Rockefellers, as a public-private partnership. The intergovernmental structure is the partner of the infra-governmental network of private stakeholders. In terms of resources, the power of the private sector “partners” dwarfs that of their government counterparts.

Corporate fiefdoms are not limited by national borders. BlackRock alone currently holds $8.5 trillion of assets under management. This is nearly five times the size of the total GDP of UN Security Council permanent member Russia and more than three times the GDP of the UK.

So-called sovereign countries are not sovereign over their own central banks nor are they “sovereign” over international financial institutions like the IMF, the New Development Bank (NDB), the World Bank or the Bank for International Settlements. The notion that any nation state or intergovernmental organisation is capable of bringing the global network of private capital to heel is farcical.

At the COP26 Conference in Glasgow in 2021, King Charles III—then Prince Charles—prepared the conference to endorse the forthcoming announcement of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). He made it abundantly clear who was in charge and, in keeping with UN objectives, clarified national governments role as “enabling partners”:

The scale and scope of the threat we face call for a global systems level solution based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel based economy. [. . .] So ladies and gentleman, my plea today is for countries to come together to create the environment that enables every sector of industry to take the action required. We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. [. . .] [W]e need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at [its] disposal far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders. It offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.

Unless Putin and Xi Jinping intend to completely restructure the United Nations, including all of its institutions and specialised agencies, their objective of protecting “the United Nations-driven international architecture” appears to be nothing more than a bid to cement their status as the nominal leaders of the UN-G3P. As pointed out by UN-DESA, through the UN-G3P, that claim to political authority is extremely limited. Global corporations dominate and are currently further consolidating their global power through “multi-stakeholder governance.”

Whether unipolar or multipolar, the so-called “world order” is the system of global governance led by the private sector—the oligarchs. Nation-states, including Russia and China, have already agreed to follow global priorities determined at the global governance level. The question is not which model of the global public-private “world order” we should accept, but rather why we would ever accept any such “world order” at all.

This, then, is the context within which we can explore the alleged advantages of a “multipolar world order” led by China, Russia and increasingly India. Is it an attempt, as claimed by some, to reinvigorate the United Nations and create a more just and equitable system of global governance? Or is it merely the next phase in the construction of what many refer to as the “New World Order”?

Link

community logo
Join the TheDinarian Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like

Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Pay Attention Here...😉

These two crypto Ponzi schemes are about to collapse


👉 Sharplink Gaming & Microstrategy

Source: @chooserich đŸ—Łïž

00:04:41
Introducing Arc, the home for stablecoin finance.

Arc is an open Layer-1 blockchain purpose-built to drive the next chapter of financial innovation powered by stablecoins.

Designed to provide an enterprise-grade foundation for payments, FX, and capital markets, Arc delivers the performance, reliability, and liquidity builders need to meet global financial demands.

Arc features:
✅ USDC as native gas
✅ Built-in FX engine
✅ Deterministic sub-second finality
✅ Opt-in privacy
✅ Full Circle platform integration

Open, composable, and EVM-compatible, Arc is designed to interoperate seamlessly with the broader multichain ecosystem.

As part of our mission to advance blockchain infrastructure, we're excited to welcome the Malachite team and IP from Informal Systems to Circle. Arc is built on Malachite’s high-performance consensus engine.

In line with our commitment to open-source development, the core software for Arc will be released under a permissive license, enabling the broader developer community to contribute, extend, and build ...

00:02:50
The Stellar Foundation: Trustless doesn’t mean trust-free.

This weekend at Friends with Benefits FEST, we explored how protocol design, engineering, and community work together to make “trustless” systems work — and why trust matters for blockchain adoption.

00:00:35
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚹 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

PYTH NETWORK IS FINALLY IN THE TOP 100

The universe confirms with an 888

❀ the synchronicity ✚

post photo preview
Can't keep up with all these 🚀

Mix it up đŸ„Ł

$MYX is the native token of @MYX_Finance, a 👉 Pyth pilled perpetual DEX, and its feed is now live across 100+ blockchains.

https://x.com/PythNetwork/status/1958892001346429006

Tokenized Gold XAUm is building on @SuiNetwork’s DeFi ecosystem at full speed, bringing 99.99% purity physical gold to fuel the next wave of #SuiDeFi

From the first-ever XAUm price #Oracle to DEXs, lending markets, and #AI vaults, XAUm is fueling #liquidity & #access on Sui from Day 1:

đŸ”č @SlushWallet (Wallet)
đŸ”č 👉 @PythNetwork (XAUm Oracle)
đŸ”č @MMTFinance Momentum (DEX)
đŸ”č @Official_NODO (AI LP vaults)
đŸ”č @navi_protocol (Lending)
đŸ”č @AlphaLendSui (Lending)
đŸ”č @AlphaFiSUI (Lending vaults)

Next week, we will share more exciting insights on the incentive program with each partner. Follow us to learn more.

https://x.com/matrixdock/status/1958849330439495898

post photo preview
Pyth Network (PYTH) To Rally Higher? This Emerging Fractal Setup Saying Yes!

The cryptocurrency market is undergoing a healthy cooldown as Ethereum (ETH) eases to $4,440 from its recent peak of $4,780. The pullback has weighed on most major altcoins — including Pyth Network (PYTH) — which is down about 5% over the past week.

But while the short-term dip might look discouraging, PYTH’s chart is showing something far more interesting: a price structure that mirrors the exact same bullish breakout pattern that sent Skale (SKL) soaring by triple digits earlier this month.

PYTH Mirrors SKL’s Breakout Structure

A glance at SKL’s daily chart reveals a textbook falling wedge formation — a well-known bullish reversal pattern. Once SKL broke above the wedge and printed a higher high followed by a higher low, it flipped both the 200-day and 100-day moving averages into firm support. That technical shift triggered a 148% rally in just days.

PYTH appears to be tracing the same path.

Like SKL, PYTH has already broken out from its falling wedge and formed a higher high and higher low. It is now consolidating just beneath a critical confluence of resistance, with the 100-day MA at $0.1235 and the 200-day MA at $0.1481 — a setup eerily similar to SKL’s pre-breakout structure.

What’s Next for PYTH?

For the bullish fractal to fully play out, PYTH will need to close decisively above the $0.1235–$0.1481 zone, ideally on rising volume. A confirmed breakout could open the door to the first upside target of $0.21, representing roughly 78% potential gains from current levels.

However, confirmation is key. Until PYTH clears these moving average hurdles, it remains vulnerable to extended consolidation or even a false breakout. Still, the fractal similarity to SKL is hard to overlook — and if history repeats, PYTH bulls could be on the verge of a major move.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Read full Article
post photo preview
Deep Dive into Pyth Network 💎💎💎💎💎
👉From November 2024😉

What are Oracles?

Blockchains in and of themselves are useful already, for trustless and permissionless transactions without censorship. No trust or verification from the user is required because it is stored on a decentralised ledger with global consensus. What if certain transactions require reliable and real-time data from external sources that do not necessarily have a global consensus or can be stored on the same ledger? For example:

  • Products that rely on price feeds of assets from other blockchains or real-world markets: Many decentralized finance (DeFi) applications, like decentralized exchanges or lending platforms, need accurate and timely information about asset prices (e.g., stocks, cryptocurrencies, commodities). Since these prices are continuously changing in real-world markets, blockchains need a way to securely access this off-chain data.
  • Products that require verifiable and secure random numbers: Randomness is crucial for a variety of blockchain use cases, such as lotteries, gaming, and even secure cryptographic protocols. However, generating truly random numbers on-chain is challenging without introducing bias or predictability. Off-chain randomness, when provided by a reliable source, is often needed.
  • Products dependent on historical price data: Some DeFi platforms and financial products might need access to archived price data for risk assessment, backtesting trading strategies, or offering historical analysis. Since blockchains primarily focus on storing current state information, they need external sources to provide this historical data efficiently.

To address these challenges, Oracles were introduced. Oracles serve as bridges between blockchains and the external world, providing smart contracts with access to off-chain data. They connect external data providers—such as market data owners, web APIs, or IoT devices—to decentralized applications across multiple blockchains. Oracles enable these applications to securely and reliably obtain real-time data, execute transactions based on external events, and interact with data that cannot be directly stored on-chain.

Why can this data be trusted? Oracles provide a robust mechanism for ensuring the integrity and reliability of off-chain data before it is used on the blockchain. An oracle network verifies the:

  • Authenticity: To ensure that the data is genuine and comes from a legitimate source, oracle networks source data from multiple trusted providers or verifiable APIs. This process reduces the risk of malicious or false information being introduced into smart contracts.
  • Accuracy: Accurate data is crucial for smart contracts to function correctly. Oracles achieve this by aggregating data from several independent sources. Instead of relying on a single provider, an oracle network will query multiple data sources and compare their responses.
  • Reliability: Oracle networks enhance reliability by using decentralized nodes, which increases resilience against failures or malicious activity. If one data source or node fails or provides incorrect information, the other nodes in the network can continue to operate and provide valid data.

The demand for accurate and reliable off-chain data is growing as the number of real-world use-cases and adoption of blockchain increases. Users of applications are more than willing to pay for an oracle service that is accurate and reliable and covers a large variety of use-cases.

Pyth Network versus Other Oracles

Read the blog post of Battle of the Oracles to learn more about the different oracles solutions. To recap, Pyth Network is a high-frequency oracle leveraging Solana's technology, offering a robust solution for off-chain data sharing for primarily decentralized finance applications (DeFi). It provides services like real-time price feeds and benchmarks, accessible to a wide range of financial service providers. PYTH is the governance token and utility token of the Pyth Network. Supply and demand for the PYTH token is directly related to level of usage and total demand of Pyth’s services and Pyth Network’s Tokenomics.

Total Value Secured by Oracles

While Chainlink holds the lion’s share of the total value secured by oracles, Pyth has shown by far the largest growth in terms of TVS, number of protocols supported and number of DApps. Pyth is expanding rapidly, across different networks and protocols, supporting more DApps, data providers and integration partners every day. In the same time frame, Chainlink’s marketshare has decreased. Comparing the main metrics of MCAP/TVS ratio and MCAP/TTV ratio, we notice that based on market capitalization (circulating supply), Pyth is undervalued whereas the TVS ratio based on fully diluted value paints a different picture. This is because only 37% of PYTH tokens are unlocked, the next significant PYTH token unlock takes place in May of 2025 and happens yearly thereafter on the same date until the full amount of tokens has been unlocked by 2027.

Use-cases Enabled by Pyth

Products and Services:

  • Price Feeds: real-time market data for smart contracts, blockchains, and applications
  • Benchmarks: historical market data for smart contracts, blockchains, and applications
  • Express Relay: smart contracts or protocols that need protection against MEV (Express Relay) Express Relay is one of a kind product that offers developers to auction off valuable transactions directly to MEV searchers without validator interference
  • Entropy: smart contracts that require secure on-chain random numbers. Secure and verifiable random numbers are incredibly important for creating a fair and unpredictable on-chain actions (e.g., for games)
  • Pyth DAO Governance model

Examples:

  • Decentralised Exchanges (DEXs) require reliable real-time price feeds to provide users accurate trades.
  • Pyth’s data pull model provides data directly from the source, such as exchanges, market makers or DeFi protocols. Because data is pulled only on demand and not pushed at a given interval, it scales efficiently, and costs are offloaded to users where updates are demand-based.

Case Study: Drift (DEX)

Refresher: What is a DEX?

Decentralized Exchange (DEX) allows users to trade cryptocurrencies directly, without intermediaries, using smart contracts on a blockchain. DEXes operate peer-to-peer, providing greater privacy and control over assets compared to centralized exchanges.

There are two main types of DEXes:

  1. Order Book DEXes: These platforms match buy and sell orders using a live order book, similar to traditional exchanges. Examples include dYdX.
  2. Automated Market Makers (AMMs): AMMs use liquidity pools and algorithms to determine asset prices, allowing users to trade instantly without needing a counterparty. Examples include Uniswap and SushiSwap.

Context

Drift is a perpetual trading DEX built on Solana. Speed, reliability, and performance make or break a perpetual trading ecosystem. Drift is a perpetual trading platform that allows traders to create leveraged positions against the performance of synthetic assets.

Why Pyth?

Drift seeks to offer the most feature-rich, powerful perpetual DEX with lightning-fast execution. This ambition necessitates a robust Oracle solution. Legacy oracles are slow and susceptible to front and back running.

Pyth and Drift partnered to rapidly deploy a proof-of-concept. This successful relationship satisfies the ultra-fast network requirements of Drift’s execution tools and is capable of supporting thousands of users and hundreds of assets.

This is only one of many examples of an effective partnership and integration that gives Web3 users an enhanced user experience than DApps that use other Oracle solutions. There are presently over 410 integration partners supporting the transition from push to pull Oracles with Pyth Networks.

Pyth versus Chainlink

We compare Chainlink and Pyth Network with two main metrics: Total Value Secured (TVS) and Total Transaction Volume (TTV)

Total Value Secured

Pyth’s Total Value Secured (TVS) is more distributed across different blockchains and applications compared to Chainlink, offering greater resilience and diversification. Here's how the comparison breaks down:

  • Blockchain Distribution: Pyth’s TVS shows a broader spread across multiple blockchains. For instance, only 61.1% of Pyth’s TVS is concentrated on the Solana blockchain, which means the remaining value is distributed across other blockchains, contributing to its decentralized footprint. In contrast, 97.1% of Chainlink’s TVS is concentrated on Ethereum, creating a higher dependence on a single blockchain. This heavy reliance on Ethereum makes Chainlink more vulnerable to network-specific issues, such as scalability concerns or market downturns affecting Ethereum.
  • Application Distribution: Pyth also demonstrates a healthier diversification across different applications. Only 23.8% of Pyth’s TVS is tied to its top application, meaning the remaining value is distributed among various other applications. This broader application spread lowers the risk of one dominant app affecting the network’s overall performance. Chainlink, however, has 48.8% of its TVS tied to its top application, meaning nearly half of its secured value relies on a single application. This concentration creates a potential single point of failure, making Chainlink more sensitive to shifts in the usage or success of that key application.

Pyth's more balanced distribution of TVS across different blockchains and applications enhances its resilience. With a healthier spread of its value, Pyth is better positioned to withstand market fluctuations or downturns that may affect individual blockchains or applications, making it less exposed to risks associated with dependency on any single network or product. This diversified approach gives Pyth a structural advantage in terms of long-term stability and adaptability.

Total Transaction Volume

Another, perhaps better, metric to measure the true market share and usage of an Oracle network is TTV (Total Transaction Volume). TTV is strongly correlated with the frequency of oracle price updates and therefore oracle revenue and true demand for its products and services. TVS can overstate or understate an application’s demand for price updates, because an application could have a disproportionate amount of locked value relative to the amount of Oracle interactions one would expect to observe.

Chainlink, the traditional market leader of oracle networks, is losing ground after being slow to serve customers needing faster data updates, though they've recently launched a new high-speed service. Pyth has become a successful competitor by focusing on rapid data delivery across multiple platforms, making it easier for financial applications to access real-time price information. Large trading platforms are increasingly building their own internal price tracking systems rather than paying external providers, suggesting cost is a major factor in their decisions.

The key to future success in digital trading will be speed - traditional exchanges currently have an advantage with their centralized systems, but new platforms are starting to close this gap by developing faster price update capabilities.

Pyth Network Governance

The Pyth Network operates a decentralized governance system that empowers the community by allowing all PYTH token holders to have a direct say in the network's development and decision-making processes. This decentralized governance model ensures that control of the network is distributed among its users, promoting transparency and inclusion.

To participate in governance, token holders must stake their PYTH tokens through the Pyth staking program. By staking their tokens, users gain the ability to vote on community governance proposals, ensuring that they have a voice in the key decisions shaping the future of the Pyth Network.

In addition to voting, any PYTH token holder has the right to submit proposals to the Pyth DAO, provided they meet the requirement of holding and staking at least 0.25% of the total PYTH tokens staked. The proposals that can be brought to the DAO are diverse and impact many critical aspects of the network's functionality, including:

  • Determining the size of update fees: Proposals can influence the fees charged for updates to the network, ensuring that they remain fair and competitive.
  • Reward distribution mechanisms for publishers: The community can vote on how rewards are allocated to data publishers, ensuring that those contributing accurate and reliable data are fairly compensated.
  • Approving software updates across blockchains: The Pyth Network operates across multiple blockchains, and governance participants have the power to approve essential updates to on-chain programs, ensuring the network remains up to date and secure.
  • Listing price feeds and determining their reference data: Token holders can vote on which price feeds are listed on Pyth, as well as set the technical parameters for these feeds, such as the number of decimal places in the prices and the reference exchanges used to determine the data.
  • Selecting data publishers: The governance system allows the community to permission publishers, or select which entities are allowed to provide data for each price feed. This ensures that only trusted and verified data sources are contributing to the network.

Conclusion

The Pyth Network stands out as a disruptive force in the decentralized oracle space, rapidly growing across protocols and blockchains and setting new standards for both data speed and diversification. Leveraging Solana technology, Pyth brings high-frequency, real-time market data directly from first-party sources—including exchanges and trading firms—to an expanding universe of DeFi and TradFi applications. Compared to its primary competitors, Pyth demonstrates healthier resilience by distributing its Total Value Secured across multiple blockchains and applications, reducing dependencies and systemic risk.

Recent market trends show Pyth gaining ground in metrics like Total Transaction Volume, challenging traditional leaders like Chainlink and reflecting a broader shift toward fast, reliable, and diversified data solutions in decentralized finance. Its innovative approach—such as direct publisher sourcing, sub-second updates, and auditable aggregation—addresses the needs of financial markets with unique precision and transparency.

Ultimately, for developers, institutions, and investors seeking reliable off-chain data with speed and global reach, Pyth Network is quickly becoming a cornerstone oracle solution—and its trajectory signals a new era of dynamic, decentralized connectivity for global finance.

 

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
Understanding the Crypto Alt Season

The next altcoin season is poised to ignite the crypto market, promising to turn savvy investors' portfolios into goldmines. As Bitcoin's dominance wanes, a new era of blockchain innovation is dawning—are you ready to ride the wave?

Market behavior often exhibits distinct patterns and cycles. One such phenomenon that has captured the attention of traders and investors alike is the "Alt Season"—a period when alternative cryptocurrencies, or "altcoins," outperform Bitcoin and experience significant price surges.

The concept of market cycles and seasonality is not unique to crypto; it's a well-established principle in traditional financial markets. However, in volatile crypto space, these cycles can be more pronounced and occur with greater frequency.  

In this article, we’ll try to cover these and other topics: 

  1. The nature and characteristics of Alt Seasons
  2. The importance of recognizing market cycles in cryptocurrency trading
  3. Alt Season indicators and how to interpret them
  4. Predictions and speculatins about the next potential Alt Season

What Is Crypto Alt Season?

Crypto Alt Season, short for "Alternative Cryptocurrency Season," refers to a period in the cryptocurrency market when alternative cryptocurrencies (altcoins) significantly outperform Bitcoin in terms of price appreciation. During an Alt Season:

  1. Many altcoins experience rapid price increases.
  2. The market share of altcoins grows relative to Bitcoin.
  3. Trading volume for altcoins typically increases.
  4. Investor attention shifts from Bitcoin to various altcoin projects.

An Alt Season can last anywhere from a few weeks to several months. It's often characterized by increased risk appetite among investors, who are willing to allocate more capital to smaller, potentially higher-risk crypto projects in search of higher returns.

Is Crypto Season the Same As Crypto Alt Season?

While related, Crypto Season and Crypto Alt Season are not exactly the same:

  1. Crypto Season:
    • Refers to a broader bullish period in the entire cryptocurrency market.
    • Typically includes price appreciation for both Bitcoin and altcoins.
    • Can be longer in duration, sometimes lasting for many months or even a year or more.
    • Often starts with a Bitcoin rally, followed by increased interest in the broader crypto market.
  2. Crypto Alt Season:
    • Specifically focuses on the outperformance of altcoins compared to Bitcoin.
    • Can occur within a broader Crypto Season but is more narrowly defined.
    • Generally shorter in duration than a full Crypto Season.
    • May happen towards the latter part of a broader Crypto Season, as investors seek higher returns in smaller cap coins.

Key Differences:

  • Scope: Crypto Season encompasses the entire market, while Alt Season focuses on altcoins.
  • Duration: Crypto Seasons are generally longer than Alt Seasons.
  • Market Dynamics: In a Crypto Season, Bitcoin often leads the rally, while in an Alt Season, altcoins outperform Bitcoin.

It's important to note that these terms are not officially defined and can be subject to different interpretations within the cryptocurrency community. However, understanding the distinction can help investors and traders better analyze market trends and potential opportunities in different segments of the crypto market.

What Is Alt Season Indicator?

The Alt Season Indicator is a tool used by cryptocurrency traders and investors to gauge whether the market is entering or currently in an "Alt Season" — a period when altcoins are outperforming Bitcoin. While there isn't a single, universally accepted Alt Season Indicator, several metrics and tools are commonly used to assess the likelihood of an Alt Season. Here are some key aspects of Alt Season Indicators:

Bitcoin Dominance

One of the most widely used indicators is Bitcoin Dominance, which measures Bitcoin's market capitalization as a percentage of the total cryptocurrency market cap.

  • Calculation: (Bitcoin Market Cap / Total Crypto Market Cap) * 100
  • Interpretation: A declining Bitcoin Dominance often signals a potential Alt Season, as it indicates that capital is flowing from Bitcoin into altcoins.
  • Threshold: Some traders consider Bitcoin Dominance below 50% as a potential indicator of an Alt Season.

Altcoin Market Cap Ratio

This indicator compares the total market capitalization of altcoins to Bitcoin's market cap.

  • Calculation: Total Altcoin Market Cap / Bitcoin Market Cap
  • Interpretation: An increasing ratio suggests growing strength in the altcoin market relative to Bitcoin.

Top 10 Altcoins Performance

This indicator tracks the performance of the top 10 altcoins by market cap (excluding Bitcoin) compared to Bitcoin over a specific period.

  • Calculation: Average percentage gain of top 10 altcoins vs. Bitcoin's percentage gain
  • Interpretation: When a majority of top altcoins consistently outperform Bitcoin, it may indicate an Alt Season.

Alt Season Index

Some crypto data platforms offer a proprietary Alt Season Index, which combines various metrics to provide a single score indicating the likelihood of an Alt Season.

  • Scale: Often presented as a percentage or a 0-100 score
  • Interpretation: Higher scores (e.g., above 75%) suggest a higher probability of an ongoing Alt Season

Trading Volume Ratios

This indicator compares the trading volumes of altcoins to Bitcoin's trading volume.

  • Calculation: Total Altcoin Trading Volume / Bitcoin Trading Volume
  • Interpretation: An increase in this ratio may indicate growing interest in altcoins, potentially signaling an Alt Season.

Important Considerations:

  1. No single indicator is foolproof. Traders often use a combination of indicators for a more comprehensive analysis.
  2. Market conditions can change rapidly, and past patterns don't guarantee future results.
  3. Different traders may use different thresholds or interpretations of these indicators.
  4. The crypto market's evolving nature means that indicators may need to be adjusted over time to remain relevant.

Understanding and effectively using Alt Season Indicators can help traders and investors make more informed decisions about allocating their resources between Bitcoin and altcoins. However, it's crucial to combine these indicators with broader market analysis and risk management strategies.

Alt Seasons: Historical Perspective, Current Situation, and Future Predictions

Previous Altcoin Seasons

In crypto, two periods stand out as particularly significant for altcoins. These "alt seasons" saw unprecedented growth and interest in cryptocurrencies beyond Bitcoin, reshaping the landscape of digital assets.

The 2017-2018 Alt Season

Duration: December 2017 to January 2018

Context:

  • Bitcoin (BTC) experienced its most remarkable bull run to date, reaching nearly $20,000 in December 2017.
  • This surge in Bitcoin's price and public interest created a ripple effect throughout the crypto market.

Key Developments:

  1. Proliferation of New Coins: The success of Bitcoin catalyzed the launch of numerous new cryptocurrencies.
  2. Investor Frenzy: Buoyed by Bitcoin's success, investors eagerly sought the "next Bitcoin," pouring capital into various altcoins.
  3. ICO Boom: This period saw a surge in Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), with many projects raising millions in a matter of hours or days.
  4. Market Expansion: The total cryptocurrency market cap reached unprecedented levels, briefly surpassing $800 billion in January 2018.

Notable Altcoins: Ethereum (ETH), Ripple (XRP), and Litecoin (LTC) saw significant price increases during this period.

The 2020-2021 Alt Season

Duration: December 2020 to April 2021

Context:

  • Bitcoin broke its previous all-time high, surpassing $60,000 in March 2021.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic had accelerated digital adoption and increased interest in alternative investments.

Key Developments:

  1. DeFi Explosion: Decentralized Finance (DeFi) projects gained massive traction, with many tokens seeing exponential growth.
  2. NFT Boom: Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) entered the mainstream, driving interest in blockchain-based digital assets.
  3. Institutional Adoption: Major companies and institutional investors began adding cryptocurrencies to their balance sheets.
  4. Technological Advancements: Many altcoins introduced innovative features, scaling solutions, and use cases.

Notable Altcoins: Ethereum (ETH) reached new highs, while projects like Binance Coin (BNB), Cardano (ADA), and Polkadot (DOT) saw remarkable growth.

Comparative Analysis: Both alt seasons shared some common characteristics:

  • They were preceded by significant Bitcoin price rallies.
  • New projects and tokens gained rapid popularity and valuation.
  • Retail investor participation increased dramatically.
  • The overall cryptocurrency market capitalization reached new heights.

However, the 2020-2021 alt season was marked by greater institutional involvement and a broader range of technological innovations, particularly in DeFi and NFTs.

Is It Alt Season?

Based on the indicators discussed above, it's not currently an altcoin season. The Altcoin Season Index at 41 and Bitcoin's market dominance at 61.3% both suggest that Bitcoin is still the dominant force in the crypto market at this time.

When Is Alt Season?

Based on the information we could gather from various experts, we can analyze the predictions for the next altcoin season as follows:

  • Based on the latest analysis from experts and on-chain data, here’s what we know about the next altcoin season:

     

    Current Status (August 2025):

     

    • The altcoin season index—a metric that signals how many altcoins outperform Bitcoin—currently sits around 37. For a “full-blown” alt season, it typically needs to rise above 75.

    • Bitcoin dominance is approximately 61-62%. Historically, dropping below 60% often coincides with a rapid rotation into altcoins and the start of alt season.

     

    Key Indicators to Watch:

     

    • Altcoin Season Index (ASI): Above 75 signals a true altcoin season.

    • Bitcoin Dominance: A move below 60% usually marks the transition; sub-50% dominance is associated with peak alt season inflows.

    • Market Activity: Increasing volumes in major altcoins and Layer 1s, meme coin rallies, and spikes in DeFi activity are early warning signs.

    • Ethereum Outperformance: When ETH surges relative to BTC, this historically precedes broader altcoin rallies.

     

    Expert Predictions for 2025:

     

    • Analysts point to a pivotal window for alt season starting as early as August 2025 and extending through the fall, with many expecting true acceleration of altcoin gains if Bitcoin’s price consolidates and capital rotates further into alts.

    • There is strong consensus that macroeconomic catalysts, such as potential U.S. interest rate cuts and ongoing Bitcoin ETF momentum, could fuel a major altcoin rally in late 2025 if positive conditions persist.

    Summary Table: Key Factors & Targets

    SignalAlt Season TriggerStatus (Aug 2025)
    Altcoin Season Index (ASI)>75 ~37
    Bitcoin dominance<60% ~61–62% (near trigger)
    Altcoin trading volumeSustained surge across many alts Rising, but not explosive
    Ethereum outperformanceETH/ BTC breakout, >$3,700 Near, ETH ~$3,500
    Market narrativesAI, DeFi, meme coins, new L1 inflows Strengthening
     

    Bottom Line:
    Most analysts agree the groundwork for altcoin season in 2025 is building. We are currently in a transition phase: if Bitcoin dominance continues to fall and the Altcoin Season Index rises above 75, a full-fledged alt season could ignite during the second half of 2025. Monitor these key indicators to stay ahead as market momentum shifts from Bitcoin into a broader range of altltcoins.

Key Factors to Consider

  • Technology: Look for coins with innovative solutions to existing blockchain challenges.
  • Adoption: Consider projects with growing partnerships and real-world use cases.
  • Market Position: Established coins with room for growth may offer a balance of stability and potential returns.
  • Tokenomics: Understanding supply dynamics can help predict potential price movements.

It's crucial to conduct thorough research before investing. The cryptocurrency market is highly volatile, and past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Always invest responsibly and within your risk tolerance.

How to Win in Next Alt Season?

Capitalizing on the next altcoin season requires a strategic approach. Here's how to maximize potential gains:

  • Research and Diversification: Thoroughly research potential investments, analyzing both fundamentals and technical aspects to identify promising altcoins. Diversify your holdings across different projects to mitigate risk and maximize potential returns. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
  • Strategic Timing: Utilize technical analysis tools like support/resistance levels and RSI to pinpoint optimal entry and exit points. Monitor market sentiment and price trends to make informed decisions. A clear entry and exit strategy is crucial for managing risk and maximizing profits during volatile periods.
  • Newer Projects: Consider participating in newer altcoin projects. This provides early access to potentially high-growth projects at discounted prices. Research upcoming defi projects with use cases, focusing on innovative projects with strong potential. Investing early can yield substantial returns as the project develops.

Conclusion

In summary, an altcoin season, marked by significant price increases in non-Bitcoin cryptocurrencies, may be on the horizon.  This potential surge could be driven by investors seeking higher returns in smaller-cap cryptocurrencies, technological advancements in altcoin projects, increased blockchain adoption, and the transition of projects from speculative ventures to real-world applications. 

Remember, while the potential for significant gains exists during an altcoin season, the cryptocurrency market remains highly volatile. Always invest responsibly.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals