Opinion on the future of cryptocurrency remains divided and dogmatic. The protagonists see it transforming the global payments system. The sceptics see it as a solution in search of a problem.
Let’s leave Bitcoin as a payments vehicle to one side. It has clearly found a substantial niche in catering for the payments requirements of drug gangs, smugglers, scammers, kidnappers, evaders of tax and capital controls, and money launderers – in short, it is the payments system of choice for the very substantial global illegal economy, replacing the cumbersome inefficiency of suitcases of banknotes. But for everyday transactions and transfers, Bitcoin doesn’t provide a useful payments function, either domestically or internationally.
The existing range of stablecoins doesn’t seem up to the task.
It has been suggested, including on The Interpreter, that stablecoins might provide the crypto-based payments solution. Stablecoins are digital currency with a fixed value against a conventional currency (usually the US dollar), in theory backed by conventional assets such as government securities.
The existing range of stablecoins doesn’t seem up to the task. Their value, in theory stable, is not assured. Terra and Luna lost most of their value, and even the largest stablecoin – Tether – has been fined for false statements about its backing. For those who are squeamish about their associations, stablecoins have the same potential for nefarious use as Bitcoin. Tether was the vehicle for a huge UK money-laundering scheme and its proponents laud its privacy and ability to avoid regulation.
Advertisement
As stablecoins currently bypass the requirements of know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering, the authorities will either have to give up on these requirements (which is unlikely) or enforce them on cyber-currencies, which would remove their main attraction of anonymity.
For everyday transactions and transfers, Bitcoin doesn’t provide a useful payments function, either domestically or internationally (Jievani Weerasinghe/Unsplash)
President Trump’s Genius Act may possibly address these issues, with regulations for combating money-laundering and other illicit activity. Stablecoins may be issued by institutions with unquestionable integrity: for example, JP Morgan plans to issue one.
If these issues are resolved, stablecoins might seem to have some advantages over the bank-based international payments system. The bank system is, indeed, very complicated. It involves multiple links: SWIFT intermediates a secure transfer message (it is not, itself, a payments system); the sending bank must have a trusted correspondent bank in the foreign country; then there is an exchange rate transaction, which will in turn require a two-way transaction via the US dollar to make the conversion using the deep US foreign-exchange markets and the Fedwire/CHIPS payments systems; and then the usual domestic payments infrastructure completes the transaction by shifting the money from the correspondent bank to the recipient’s bank. All this complexity has a cost. As the banks were, until recent years, the only way of making these transfers securely, there was a heavy monopoly levy as well. Big customers got better rates, but small transfers – workers’ remittances – paid exorbitantly.
Stablecoins could bypass some of this complexity. If the recipient had a wallet for the same stablecoin as the sender, stablecoins could be purchased and the transfer would be simple and secure. The hitch is that the recipient would still have to convert the stablecoin into local currency before they could make a purchase. Who will exchange a JP Morgan stablecoin for local currency (and what commission will they charge)?
Where crypto could potentially find a useful payments role is in the form of a central bank digital currency.
Advertisement
While the crypto promoters are trying to find an answer for this exchange problem, the bank-based system has taken note of the emerging alternatives. What do monopolists do when they are confronted by competition? They learn to compete. In recent years, commercial banks and other traditional payments systems have given far better exchange rates than formerly. For example, Wise will make a remittance transaction swiftly and with a favourable exchange rate, without going through any stablecoin links.
In short, stablecoins may have other uses (perhaps as a programable currency to facilitate commercial transactions), but are uncompetitive for international transfers.
Where crypto could potentially find a useful payments role is in the form of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Central banks’ digital currency is already the key element in the domestic payments system. A CBDC could be used in international transactions to bypass both SWIFT and the need for a foreign correspondent bank. Some central banks are already experimenting with CBDCs to make international transfers to foreign central banks, but no central bank would allow its CBDCs to be held by the general public, as this would present a major threat to the stability of the conventional banking system.
America is, unsurprisingly, not rushing to support an innovation that might undermine the dollar’s global role. The Genius Act specifically prohibits the US Federal Reserve from developing a CBDC. Without a US CBDC, it is hard to see how a CBDC-based global payments system could rival the existing arrangements.
Robert Kiyosaki said a manuscript shared by Jim Rickards changed how he views global finance.
Kiyosaki warned commonly held financial assets could face pressure as financial rules shift across markets.
His claims remain warnings, with evidence and future market developments still central.
Why Did One Manuscript Change Robert Kiyosaki’s View?
Robert Kiyosaki, the author of the best-selling personal finance book Rich Dad Poor Dad, said an advance manuscript of “The Entropy Trap” shared by Jim Rickards prompted him to rethink how he views global finance. Rickards is an economist, lawyer, and financial commentator known for writing about currencies, debt, and systemic market risk. Kiyosaki said the early reading changed his perspective on where the financial system may be headed.
The reaction was framed around a warning about financial change. The book, written by Mickey M. Maini, “blew my mind and opened my eyes to what & why global financial change is coming,” Kiyosaki described. His comments focused on what he described as a shift in the rules behind wealth, assets, and trust.
The central claim is that wealth could move away from people relying on traditional financial assumptions. Kiyosaki asserted:
“The informed will be tomorrow’s ULTRA RICH. Todays uniformed operating by the old rules of money… will become the new poor.”
The Warning Behind the Claim
The warning centers on assets that depend on trust, including U.S. bonds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and mutual funds. Kiyosaki framed those instruments as vulnerable under the financial shift he says is coming, placing commonly held investment products at the center of the risk.
That claim is severe, but he presented it as a warning rather than a proven outcome. He also pointed to large bondholders, including Japan, saying they have already started dumping U.S. bonds. He did not provide supporting data in the statement.
The acclaimed author shared:
Advertisement
“Message from book… ‘All assets that require trust, assets that most people have… such as U.S. bonds, ETFs, mutual funds will be flushed down toilets, all over the world.’”
The broader conflict is whether traditional financial assets remain reliable under the conditions Kiyosaki described. His framing divides investors between those preparing for a changed financial system and those still operating under assumptions he says may no longer hold.
What Still Needs to Be Proven
A planned August study session could clarify the warning Kiyosaki described. He said his study team would examine the message and that Rickards may join, though the evidence behind the claims has not yet been laid out.
For now, the warning rests on Kiyosaki’s account of a manuscript that changed his view. He urged readers to prepare, writing:
“I want you to be one of the world’s new rich.”
What remains unknown is whether market data, policy moves, or investor behavior will confirm the risk he described.
His recent commentary has focused on what he describes as fragility in the global monetary system, particularly around the U.S. dollar. He has pointed to rising debt, central bank policies, and inflation as risks that could trigger a sharp market downturn.
Advertisement
Alongside those concerns, he has repeatedly highlighted bitcoin, gold, and silver as alternative stores of value. In his view, those assets may help reduce exposure to traditional financial instruments during periods of currency weakness and market turbulence.
Strategy Is No Longer Just Going to “Inoculate the Market,” Selling Crypto May Be Much More Common. Here’s What That Could Mean for the Stock | The Motley Fool
When Strategy (MSTR 0.69%) sold a modest amount of Bitcoin earlier this year, it was a noteworthy development given that the company’s business has centered around buying up as much of the cryptocurrency as it can, and vowing to never sell. And it often boasts of being the largest corporate holder of the digital currency.
The company brushed off the sale of 32 Bitcoins, with management saying it simply wanted to “inoculate the market.” Well, now it appears that Strategy is doing much more than just that, and there could be more significant cryptocurrency sales in the future.
Image source: Getty Images.
Strategy unveils a Bitcoin monetization program
On June 29, Strategy released a framework going forward that it says will “enhance liquidity, preserve long-term Bitcoin exposure, and support long-term value creation for shareholders.” Among the notable components is its Bitcoin monetization program.
Within that program, the company says it may sell some of its cryptocurrency holdings for multiple reasons, including to fund a USD reserve, fund dividends or interest expense, or to fund repurchases of digital credit securities or common stock.
Advertisement
While the company says it remains committed to Bitcoin for the long term and it’s the company’s “primary treasury reserve asset,” it’s a significant change of course for Strategy, which was previously heavily against ever selling the digital asset.
Today’s Change
(-0.69%) $-0.69
Current Price
$100.08
Key Data Points
Market Cap
Advertisement
$35BMarket cap calculated using publicly traded shares outstanding only. Does not include unlisted, private, or dual-class non-traded shares. Implied market cap may vary.Market cap calculated using publicly traded shares outstanding only. Does not include unlisted, private, or dual-class non-traded shares. Implied market cap may vary.
Day’s Range
$96.97 – $102.19
52wk Range
$81.81 – $457.22
Volume
Advertisement
248.6K
Avg Vol
21.3M
Gross Margin
68.11%
Advertisement
The stock is as risky and volatile as ever
Whether or not Strategy buys or sells Bitcoin doesn’t change the fact that this is a highly risky and speculative stock to own. While crypto fans may be disappointed in the company’s change in strategy, selling Bitcoin will likely not be enough to make the business any better or worse as an investment.
In just the past 12 months, the stock has plummeted a whopping 75% as volatility in digital assets has drastically weighed on its earnings, with the company incurring $12.8 billion in losses over the trailing 12 months, on revenue of $490 million.
That’s not likely to change significantly, even if Strategy offloads some of its crypto holdings, because with such a large exposure to Bitcoin, how the cryptocurrency performs will inevitably impact the company’s bottom line in a big way. This year, the leading cryptocurrency is down 28% as investor excitement around it has largely cooled off, which has proven disastrous for Strategy’s stock as well. And at this stage, there’s little reason to anticipate a recovery anytime soon.
WiFi slows most on 2.4 GHz during 8-10 AM and 6-10 PM as nearby networks compete.
Bluetooth devices and microwaves can disrupt 2.4 GHz; 5 GHz or 6 GHz may improve speeds.
WiFi 6E and WiFi 7 users can reduce congestion by switching channels and moving routers centrally.
Your WiFi can feel rock-solid at midnight and oddly sluggish by breakfast, even when you have not touched a single setting. The culprit is often outside your walls: a crowded slice of public radio spectrum where your router has to negotiate space with every nearby network, plus a grab bag of household gadgets that leak interference. Add peak-hours demand and the signal-blocking quirks of building materials and weather, and “slow internet” starts to look less like a billing issue and more like an invisible traffic problem you are forced to share.
When WiFi slows down without warning
One day your home WiFi feels snappy, the next it drags, even though your router hasn’t moved and your internet plan hasn’t changed. That swing is real, and it’s usually not your imagination or a “bad day” from your ISP. WiFi lives on shared airwaves, and those airwaves get crowded, noisy, and sometimes just plain finicky.
Think of your connection as a conversation in a busy room. Your laptop and router may be talking just fine, but the room itself can fill up fast with other chatter. What looks like a mystery slowdown is often the result of invisible competition and interference that changes hour by hour.
The battle of competing networks
Most homes still rely heavily on the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz WiFi bands, which are unlicensed spectrum in the US. That “free for everyone” reality is convenient, but it also means your network shares space with your neighbors, their smart TVs, their work laptops, and every nearby router doing the same thing.
Congestion has a rhythm. During common work-from-home and school-from-home windows, especially 8-10 AM, and again in the evening 6-10 PM, more devices are streaming, video calling, syncing, and downloading updates. Even if you pay for fast broadband, your WiFi link can become the bottleneck when the local radio environment gets packed.
Interference inside your home
Your own house can sabotage you. A microwave is the classic culprit because it can leak noise near 2.4 GHz, exactly where many WiFi networks still operate. Older cordless phones, some baby monitors, and even dense clusters of Bluetooth gadgets can add more clutter, especially in smaller apartments where everything sits close together.
Advertisement
Then there’s physics. Concrete, metal, and even water (think aquariums or thick pipes in walls) absorb and scatter radio signals. A router shoved behind a TV, tucked into a cabinet, or stuck in a far corner forces your devices to “hear” through more obstacles, lowering speeds and making dropouts more likely.
Weather, channels, and what you can do tonight
Environmental changes can matter too. Higher humidity and rain can slightly increase signal loss, and shifting temperatures can change how radio waves propagate around a neighborhood. You might never notice on its own, but paired with congestion it can tip a marginal connection into a frustrating one.
The 2.4 GHz band is also channel-limited. In the US there are 11 channels, but only 1, 6, and 11 don’t overlap. Many routers default to “auto channel,” so nearby networks can hop around trying to escape interference, sometimes creating instability. Practical fixes: prefer 5 GHz (or 6 GHz if you have WiFi 6E/7 gear), place the router centrally and higher up, and use a WiFi analyzer app to pick a less crowded channel instead of leaving it on auto.
