Have we witnessed the rise of sovereigns?

September 12th Have we witnessed the rise of sovereigns?

The rise of cryptocurrencies and digital assets reflect predictions from the vision of Milton Friedman, an unstoppable internet money economist, amid weakening state control that enables borderless economic activity and allows individuals to achieve greater financial autonomy. From inflation-hit countries employing stubcoins to the regulatory acceptance of Bitcoin in developed countries, digital assets are reshaping the balance between nations and citizens, promoting governance pluralism, and accelerating the transition to individual sovereignty. The government tries to integrate and regulate crypto, but their highly acceptance highlights the paradox of legalization tools that allow people to operate beyond the traditional financial system, indicating a deep structural shift in how power and trust are distributed globally.

Do geopolitical events match the conditions stated in sovereign individuals?

In a 1997 book, sovereigns, authors James Dale Davidson and Lord William Reese Mogg predict that the rise of the information economy will significantly weaken nation-states, turn power into individuals and people who can operate beyond traditional jurisdictions. In 2025, digital currencies, blockchain and widespread internet connectivity will enable economic activity that transcends boundaries, making traditional state management and tax mechanisms more and more fragile.

At the same time, geopolitical fragmentation and rising trade protectionism reflect the predictions of the world’s books that split into more transactional fluid alliances rather than rigid country blocs. As global trade frictions escalate, countries are increasingly prioritizing technological sovereignty, separating critical infrastructure recompanies, hostile forces, undermining universal global governance, and aligning with the papers in the book that centralizes state power.

The rise of digital and corporate “sovereignty” such as technology platforms, AI Giants and crypto-native communities further reflects the emergence of “cognitive elites” who live and operate in cyberspace rather than in territorial states. The vision increasingly sways these entities with a strong economic and informational weight that could rival state authority, highlighting the transition from territorial sovereignty to decentralized forces.

The acceleration of digital financial tools, especially in Latin America and parts of Africa and Asia, shows how individuals are carving out greater autonomy from the traditional financial system. Through stubcoins, cross-border Bitcoin adoption, or decentralized identity infrastructure, people will be able to make economic self-determination outside of nationally monopolysed institutions. That trajectory reflects the core argument of sovereignty, that technology is reshaping sovereignty itself and transforming it from a state to an individual.

Do cryptocurrencies and digital assets meet Milton Friedman’s forecast?

Milton Friedman famously predicted in the late 1990s that the Internet would avoid digital forms of money, the “internet currency,” and that the government would struggle to control. Bitcoin-led cryptocurrency is a reality of its vision. It builds on a decentralized peer-to-peer network, allowing individuals to trade globally without relying on banks, central authorities, or traditional payment infrastructure. This design is resistant to censorship, capital management, and financial basement, and is closely matched with Friedman’s insight that such systems will ultimately emerge beyond the boundaries of the state.

The resilience of cryptocurrencies is proven in real context. For example, in countries such as Argentina, Turkey and Nigeria, where inflation and currency restrictions erode public trust in citizens’ money, Bitcoin and Stablecoin provided citizens with a reliable means of accumulating value and trade across borders. Even regimes where governments seek to restrict access to crypto exchanges, peer-to-peer markets, and decentralized platforms continue to thrive, highlighting the difficulty states face in curbing financial networks without open boundaries. These dynamics show Friedman’s point. This indicates that the presence of tools for non-mediated exchange online makes it almost impossible to eradicate.

Because digital assets do not serve as money, they allow for the emergence of “sovereigns,” individuals and communities that can operate more independently of the structure of the state. The Decentralized Finance (DEFI) protocol allows users to access loans, borrowing and saving opportunities without a bank, while decentralized identity solutions and DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) provide governance and collaboration models that are not tied to geography. In El Salvador, Bitcoin was adopted as a fiat currency for several years before IMF pressure led to a revision of the law in January. The El Salvador example does an incredible job of showing how cryptography can reconstruct relationships with individuals, markets and nations. These examples show how digital assets empower people to assert financial and political autonomy and bypass traditional gatekeepers.

This trajectory suggests broader philosophical changes. Sovereignty is no longer a function of the state, but is becoming an asset that individuals can exercise through technology. Cryptocurrency allows people to protect their wealth outside of vulnerable banking systems, coordinate across borders without centralized surveillance, and maintain privacy in an era of expanding surveillance. The challenges from regulatory hardbacks to technical hurdles remain, but cryptocurrency momentum shows that Friedman’s predictions have not only come true, but is actively restructuring society. They lay the foundations for a world where individuals, not nations, increasingly determine their terms of participation in the world economy.

Are we witnessing a transition into a more sovereign future?

In sovereign individuals, Davidson and Reese Mogg envisioned a future in which states would be forced to adapt to the rise of the digital economy and the increasing autonomy of individuals operating outside of traditional borders. Recent developments in cryptocurrency regulations and adoption have unfolded this process. The government, once sought to ban or significantly limit Bitcoin, is now heading towards a framework that justifies its use, from US exchange trade funds to the recent passage of the Genius Act. This shift shows the realization that, rather than eliminating diversified money, we must find ways to coexist with it. It is a reality that reflects the predictions of government books that compete for relevance in a world where financial sovereignty is difficult to contain.

The adoption of cryptocurrency states introduces a paradox predicted by sovereigns. On the one hand, regulations and integration into the financial system will bring about new legitimacy and wider adoption, especially among once-sensitive institutions. Meanwhile, the adoption of Bitcoin allows individuals to mistakenly empower individuals to store and transfer wealth outside the control of the central bank or the Fiat system. This creates tension. While regulators frame policies as safeguards for investors and markets, the very existence of state-recognized crypto infrastructure allows citizens to easily access money that resists devaluation, censorship, or seizures.

If the momentum of this regulation continues, the impact could be severe. In emerging markets with a history of currency crisis, the formal acceptance of Bitcoin or Stubcoin could accelerate intermediation in weak financial systems and shift economic activity into a parallel digital economy. In developed markets, institutional adoption could normalize encryption as a standard portfolio allocation, further weakening the monopoly of nationally issued currency over long-term savings. As more governments join, competition between jurisdictions could be intensified, and crypto-friendly states have attracted talent, capital and innovation at the expense of slow-moving rivals. This reflects the sovereign’s vision of the fractured geopolitical landscape that flows into the environments where individuals and capital are most kind.

Ultimately, acceptance of regulators and adoption of states of cryptocurrency could accelerate the broader transition to individual sovereignty described in the book. When individuals move seamlessly across borders, participate in decentralized financial systems, and select jurisdictions based on the preferred treatment of digital assets, the traditional power of nation-states is eroded. While governments still play important roles, their roles could evolve into service providers who compete for digital citizens rather than unquestioned arbitrators of economic life. In this sense, the mainstream adoption of Bitcoin is not just a financial narrative, but a structural change in how power, trust and sovereignty are distributed in the 21st century.