High price masks an uncomfortable truth: Crypto isn’t sovereign
The following is a guest post and opinion from Adrian Brink, Co-Founder of Anoma.
In August 2025, Bitcoin hit new all-time highs, reigniting the usual flood of headlines and euphoria about the promise of sovereign money. But the higher the price goes, the easier it is to overlook a critical blind spot: crypto isn’t actually sovereign—at least not yet. Why? Because users of individual blockchains today have no choice but to rely on a single global security model. This oversight is rarely discussed, yet understanding it is fundamental if crypto is to live up to its potential and fulfill its core promise: sovereignty.
In short, sovereignty is the practical ability for individuals and communities to control their own infrastructure, assets, and data on their own terms, without being forced to trust or rely on a distant global network, corporate-owned data centers, or a set of validators that can be captured, censored, or become unavailable.
This idea is the bedrock of the vision of the crypto industry, but one that we have not achieved—at least not yet.
The Pitfalls of Monolithic Consensus Models
Modern consensus mechanisms depend on monolithic, globally synchronized networks of nodes working in sync across continents. Users, institutions, and governments have no ability to customize trust assumptions based on specific needs, compliance requirements, or risk models.
It’s akin to a single global trust fabric for crypto, with no room for sovereignty.
Moreover, most current-generation blockchains do not give us any control over our sensitive financial data. Using blockchains today means exposing your financial footprint to the world by default—a deal-breaker, especially for any serious institution looking to utilize this technology beyond holding on-chain assets.
Without the ability to control what data we share, with whom, and for what purposes, crypto will never be truly sovereign.
Global Infrastructure Is Vulnerability
Not only does today’s infrastructure limit our agency, it makes us vulnerable to disruptions in global connectivity. Blockchain security assumptions today are dependent on a globally connected, peacetime internet. In a world of relative geopolitical stability and free access to the internet, this design functions remarkably well. But what happens when global connectivity fractures under pressure? Are we truly sovereign if we depend on a single global network to use crypto in our own local communities?
The minute a global conflict breaks out, undersea fiber-optic cables are cut, governments seize bandwidth for military use, and authoritarian regimes regulate connectivity inside their borders. Even in times of peace, this is still not off the table. Just this week, internet connectivity in Asia was disrupted by a cut cable in the Red Sea. Another recent and still controversial incident took place in the Baltic Sea last November that led to calls of sabotage from northern European nations.
These are just a few examples of how our claim to sovereignty and our ability to freely transact and preserve value without interference or trusted third parties can evaporate in an instant.
While it’s a grim thought, it is one that should be both considered and prepared for if we expect networks to survive periods of global tension. This is the brittle illusion that the market cap conceals. Price alone cannot defend against systemic infrastructure failure. A high valuation is no shield against third-party threats when the network itself is physically and politically vulnerable.
The good news is that we now have the technology to mitigate our reliance on global connectivity and bring true sovereignty and resilience to users.
Sovereignty Is Within Our Grasp
How do we do it? It requires innovation beyond hard-money principles tethered to rigid global consensus mechanisms. Real sovereignty means having infrastructure that can operate as locally as required when the global network is severed, and as globally as possible when conditions improve.
It means choosing our preferred trust models and how we share our data.
Building sovereign financial infrastructure on rigid, inflexible, one-size-fits-all global consensus systems won’t cut it. We need anti-fragile, freeform systems that can adapt dynamically to changing conditions, requirements, and geographic contexts, keeping in sync with the global network even when connectivity is disrupted. We need more intelligent networks with the flexibility to take on many shapes and evolve with their users.
Such systems enable local sovereignty, where communities and users can transact and secure their assets independently, without reliance on continuous, uniform global consensus. They allow for graceful network partitioning so different subnetworks can operate autonomously and locally while maintaining the ability to interoperate and synchronize securely once reconnected.
Instead of a single global ledger, these systems enable multiple overlapping trust domains and the decentralized discovery of network participants. This allows participants to form self-governing subnetworks tailored to different trust needs.
Each domain is then capable of operating independently or as part of a larger network as nodes connect across domains for collaboration. Zero-knowledge membership proofs let nodes prove valid membership across overlapping trust domains privately and securely, enabling dynamic, secure interoperation that preserves both local autonomy and global coordination.
Data protection and settlement parameters then become configurable by users, enabling sovereignty not as an abstract ideal but as a concrete technical feature.
The brilliance of Bitcoin’s innovation as a globally shared ledger cannot and should not be denied. It catalyzed this entire industry and propelled the vision of decentralized money into reality. However, crypto’s reliance on connection to a monolithic global network remains a nagging blind spot in a world of dynamic conditions, fluid social systems, and changing needs.
It’s one of the last remaining challenges to overcome in our quest for sovereignty.
To fully realize this vision, we must continue to move forward with ambitious new approaches to blockchain infrastructure. We now have a massive opportunity to rethink our fundamental assumptions about what sovereignty is, explore locally autonomous systems, and embrace novel architectures that can meet these goals. The challenge is monumental, but the stakes are nothing less than the future of digital sovereignty and financial freedom.
The post High price masks an uncomfortable truth: Crypto isn’t sovereign appeared first on CryptoSlate.
Read More
The end game for stablecoins: Brand-name stables and fintech L1s
Is the creator economy broken? Rethinking video streaming in the age of algorithms and AI
High price masks an uncomfortable truth: Crypto isn’t sovereign
The following is a guest post and opinion from Adrian Brink, Co-Founder of Anoma.
In August 2025, Bitcoin hit new all-time highs, reigniting the usual flood of headlines and euphoria about the promise of sovereign money. But the higher the price goes, the easier it is to overlook a critical blind spot: crypto isn’t actually sovereign—at least not yet. Why? Because users of individual blockchains today have no choice but to rely on a single global security model. This oversight is rarely discussed, yet understanding it is fundamental if crypto is to live up to its potential and fulfill its core promise: sovereignty.
In short, sovereignty is the practical ability for individuals and communities to control their own infrastructure, assets, and data on their own terms, without being forced to trust or rely on a distant global network, corporate-owned data centers, or a set of validators that can be captured, censored, or become unavailable.
This idea is the bedrock of the vision of the crypto industry, but one that we have not achieved—at least not yet.
The Pitfalls of Monolithic Consensus Models
Modern consensus mechanisms depend on monolithic, globally synchronized networks of nodes working in sync across continents. Users, institutions, and governments have no ability to customize trust assumptions based on specific needs, compliance requirements, or risk models.
It’s akin to a single global trust fabric for crypto, with no room for sovereignty.
Moreover, most current-generation blockchains do not give us any control over our sensitive financial data. Using blockchains today means exposing your financial footprint to the world by default—a deal-breaker, especially for any serious institution looking to utilize this technology beyond holding on-chain assets.
Without the ability to control what data we share, with whom, and for what purposes, crypto will never be truly sovereign.
Global Infrastructure Is Vulnerability
Not only does today’s infrastructure limit our agency, it makes us vulnerable to disruptions in global connectivity. Blockchain security assumptions today are dependent on a globally connected, peacetime internet. In a world of relative geopolitical stability and free access to the internet, this design functions remarkably well. But what happens when global connectivity fractures under pressure? Are we truly sovereign if we depend on a single global network to use crypto in our own local communities?
The minute a global conflict breaks out, undersea fiber-optic cables are cut, governments seize bandwidth for military use, and authoritarian regimes regulate connectivity inside their borders. Even in times of peace, this is still not off the table. Just this week, internet connectivity in Asia was disrupted by a cut cable in the Red Sea. Another recent and still controversial incident took place in the Baltic Sea last November that led to calls of sabotage from northern European nations.
These are just a few examples of how our claim to sovereignty and our ability to freely transact and preserve value without interference or trusted third parties can evaporate in an instant.
While it’s a grim thought, it is one that should be both considered and prepared for if we expect networks to survive periods of global tension. This is the brittle illusion that the market cap conceals. Price alone cannot defend against systemic infrastructure failure. A high valuation is no shield against third-party threats when the network itself is physically and politically vulnerable.
The good news is that we now have the technology to mitigate our reliance on global connectivity and bring true sovereignty and resilience to users.
Sovereignty Is Within Our Grasp
How do we do it? It requires innovation beyond hard-money principles tethered to rigid global consensus mechanisms. Real sovereignty means having infrastructure that can operate as locally as required when the global network is severed, and as globally as possible when conditions improve.
It means choosing our preferred trust models and how we share our data.
Building sovereign financial infrastructure on rigid, inflexible, one-size-fits-all global consensus systems won’t cut it. We need anti-fragile, freeform systems that can adapt dynamically to changing conditions, requirements, and geographic contexts, keeping in sync with the global network even when connectivity is disrupted. We need more intelligent networks with the flexibility to take on many shapes and evolve with their users.
Such systems enable local sovereignty, where communities and users can transact and secure their assets independently, without reliance on continuous, uniform global consensus. They allow for graceful network partitioning so different subnetworks can operate autonomously and locally while maintaining the ability to interoperate and synchronize securely once reconnected.
Instead of a single global ledger, these systems enable multiple overlapping trust domains and the decentralized discovery of network participants. This allows participants to form self-governing subnetworks tailored to different trust needs.
Each domain is then capable of operating independently or as part of a larger network as nodes connect across domains for collaboration. Zero-knowledge membership proofs let nodes prove valid membership across overlapping trust domains privately and securely, enabling dynamic, secure interoperation that preserves both local autonomy and global coordination.
Data protection and settlement parameters then become configurable by users, enabling sovereignty not as an abstract ideal but as a concrete technical feature.
The brilliance of Bitcoin’s innovation as a globally shared ledger cannot and should not be denied. It catalyzed this entire industry and propelled the vision of decentralized money into reality. However, crypto’s reliance on connection to a monolithic global network remains a nagging blind spot in a world of dynamic conditions, fluid social systems, and changing needs.
It’s one of the last remaining challenges to overcome in our quest for sovereignty.
To fully realize this vision, we must continue to move forward with ambitious new approaches to blockchain infrastructure. We now have a massive opportunity to rethink our fundamental assumptions about what sovereignty is, explore locally autonomous systems, and embrace novel architectures that can meet these goals. The challenge is monumental, but the stakes are nothing less than the future of digital sovereignty and financial freedom.
The post High price masks an uncomfortable truth: Crypto isn’t sovereign appeared first on CryptoSlate.
Read More
The end game for stablecoins: Brand-name stables and fintech L1s