Begging your pardon from the beginning if it applies, this article isn't meant to insult. In fact, it's really more about the redistribution of wealth happening electronically today that is upsetting a paradigm that's been in place since the end of World War 2 and the establishment of the modern banking fiat system in that conflict's reconstruction period afterward.

For folks who remember the Cold War, the term "redistribution of wealth" was a dirty Communist idea rooted in the teachings of Karl Marx that a minority of rich, powerful owners run everything at the expense of the working class. That cabal needed to be once and for all broken, in Marx's view, for the worker to gain full freedom and power again. Ergo, what the owners had in property needed to be taken from them and given to the state for the betterment of the entire party (the people). For decades, this philosophy was used in many Communist government countries as the pretext to steal and seize and then re-allocate to the party faithful. The West took it as the primary reason Capitalism had to be protected from outright mobs of thieves. So, as a result, every time someone would come up with an idea how to better allocate government resources so that the poor and low income class could get a leg up, they were labeled by their conservative opponents as Communists.

Today, however, it is crypto that is fundamentally changing the nature of how money is earned, collected, and distributed globally. Where the West has for most of the 20th century essentially enjoyed a monopoly on money control through the fiat banking system, the 21st century and blockchain have shown the first serious crack in the wall and how those in developing world can get a leg up without anyone's permission in fiat land.

It's important to remember, the current paradigm is not new. It was established after World War II and during the reconstruction when the U.S. essentially came out of the conflict as the only player not seriously damaged. Everyone had shifted their gold to the U.S. to avoid seizure by the Nazis or theft by the Soviets (example, Spain lost its gold trusting the Soviets' care), and with the war over the U.S. was the only powerhouse available to help anyone. So, with the Bretton-Woods Conference in 1944, the foundations for the modern international fiat system was agreed to. This meeting and subsequent system creating the framework for international finance, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Those names sound familiar? They should; they are the powerhouses that have for years financed developing nations and forced them to specific economic practices in trade for financing help.

Crypto, however, doesn't follow any of the above. Anyone can participate, and anyone can invest, buy, sell and take advantage of gains as well as suffer losses. It's an open, equal system in terms of access. Granted, those who have more, have more swing in supply and demand, but it's about as "un-rigged" a financial system as there can be due to decentralization, a key difference from fiat. That also means those in countries hobbled by economic IMF constraints don't need to depend on their government to produce income opportunities for them anymore. All they need is an Internet connection, some creativity, and a blockchain connection.

If you think this is all conjecture, take this point into account: during the height of the 2020 crypto bull run, and interesting pattern would appear for anyone watching what was happening on major coin charts. During the day in the West, the chart would work its way upward gaining hour by hour. However, at about midnight for the West, an interesting repetitive value drop would occur. Anyone who understands invest patterns knows what was going on; it was classic pump and sell scenario, and then wash-rinse-and repeat. However, more importantly, those funds being pumped into crypto due to FOMO were going farther than just that coin market. They were going electronically to sellers elsewhere in the world. The losses of the West were becoming the repeat gains of the East and further.

More importantly, folks in countries where the typical income of a month was maybe near $100 USD, were now realizing a practical, real outlet to earn more, much more. Various sites and forums became flooded with "snappers," folks grabbing and collecting dust that, in the West didn't mean much, but elsewhere bought groceries for the week.

The fact is, crypto for many in other parts of the world has been the first real access to serious financial opportunity that is also translatable to real means and financial opportunity. This, again, isn't a new concept, just a new arena. For example, for years many people in the U.S. put down Mexican migrant workers who essentially "slaved" away in Western farm fields, lived in farm shacks and then went back to Mexico after the harvest season was over each year. What many Americans didn't understand, however, was that those same workers were wiring their funds back to Mexico where those basic U.S. dollars earned under farming minimum wage were translating to significant money power down south. Many such workers were able to use the funds with family to buy entire multiple level homes and ranches back in Mexico. Not every migrant worker was so lucky, but many were smart enough to work as a family unit to leverage the differences between currency values for their real retirement after years of working manually. The same is happening with crypto, just with more countries and more access.

Fiat system managers and owners, of course, aren't pleased with the above. Decentralization and, more problematic, the redistribution of wealth out of the West and far more globally, means bank and corporate players have to contend with new competitors, broader markets, and more challenging ability to remain relevant financially. If people can make solid income outside of fiat, why would they continue to use it? For years, banks thought supporting mobile networks in developing regions like Africa meant wider spread of fiat systems with less infrastructure risk having to build traditional banking networks. What they didn't realize was that it also paved the road for Internet and crypto access as well. Why would anyone then use a bank tool on a mobile that charges fees when they can instead use crypto and make money while holding digital coin when not transacting? It's kind of a no-brainer who wins that argument.

The pushback with "crypto regulation" is not surprising. The fiat players are worried. Crypto is a serious erosion of their hold. However, more worrisome, it is eroding the concentration of fiat resources in the West.

Welcome to the real new order.