Bankless founder: As Trump tears up the old order, Ethereum is building new rules.

At the Davos Forum, cryptocurrency was a key topic, but a more significant theme emerged: a shift in the global order. U.S. and Canadian leaders highlighted a fracture in the "rules-based international order," moving towards a "law of the jungle" where powerful nations act unilaterally.

The article argues the post-WWII system, including the UN, is fragile and failing, as evidenced by the U.S. retreating from global leadership under an "America First" policy.
In this vacuum, "pariah states" like Russia exploit the weak international order to grow stronger.
The author proposes decentralized crypto protocols like Bitcoin and Ethereum as a potential new foundation for global coordination.
These protocols offer a robust, autonomous, and rules-based system that operates on "if...then" logic, contrasting with the broken political agreements.
They don't replace nation-states but could provide a unifying digital layer for global cooperation, acting as a check on issues like deficit spending and offering a new model for a rules-based order.

Written by: David Hoffman , Founder of Bankless

Compiled by: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher

This year's Davos Forum was truly spectacular.

This place brings together many heavyweights in the cryptocurrency industry, including Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, CZ, and Larry Fink.

While cryptocurrencies were the focus of the forum, what truly drew attention was the Trump administration's clear statement regarding a phase of shift in the global order.

Two key speeches at the Davos Forum highlighted this point. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard delivered a speech entitled "Globalization Has Failed," while Canadian Prime Minister Mark Reed responded by saying, "The rules-based international order is experiencing a fracture, not a transformation."

Rules-based international order vs. law of the jungle

Since World War II, the international community has maintained a certain level of order and cooperation. Although the United Nations has relatively limited power, it is highly respected and plays a pivotal role in national decision-making.

International law once existed, but it was mainly because we all believed in it. We collectively gave it meaning.

The Trump administration decided to shatter this shared illusion.

Trump believes that this "rules-based international order" exists only because the United States allows it to exist. As the strongest nation with the most powerful military, this means that we are the true builders of this "rules-based international order," and Trump's "America First" ideology implies that he no longer wants to get along with the rest of the world.

According to Trump, as Lutnick explained in his speech, this model is not in America's best interest, so we are now going to find another way.

Nic Carter is right—the state is the highest level of organization created by humankind. Before the nation-state, religion and monarchy were the highest levels of organization that humankind could create, and before that, there were feudalism and tribes.

We have attempted to build higher-level organizational structures by reaching “joint agreements” with agencies such as the United Nations, but these agreements have ultimately proven to be very fragile and have had little impact on the world.

Therefore, our current situation is this: by 2026, the United States has abandoned its attempt to build a higher-level unified organizational structure and claims that we are better off relying on ourselves.

It is worth noting that "pariah states" like Russia and Iran have grown stronger precisely by relying on a weak international order. They have consistently pursued the law of might and exploited the weaknesses of the "rules-based international order" to expand their power, committing human rights violations that the United Nations has only condemned.

While it is regrettable to see attempts at global cooperation ultimately fail, at least we can finally be frank in pointing out that Russia and others have never truly abided by these rules.

Bitcoin, Ethereum, and decentralized crypto protocols

Decentralized encryption protocols are robust and autonomous "higher-level organizational structures" that have failed to be realized from the "rules-based international order" paradigm.

Trump's divisive policies toward a unified international community are precisely the kind of situation that Ethereum aims to balance.

When a unified world falls apart and becomes dominated by regional powers, Ethereum reunifies it in cyberspace.

These agreements do not enforce laws, nor do they protect their members. They do not replace nation-states. However, they serve as an omnipresent, autonomous coordinating layer for uniting the peoples of the world.

Brian Armstrong's conversation with the Governor of the Bank of France exemplifies this power. This governor made a mistake that all central bank governors make: misunderstanding and underestimating Bitcoin. Brian corrected him, pointing out that "Bitcoin has no issuer—it's a decentralized protocol…", and then went on to explain Bitcoin's most important role in unifying the world: "...[Bitcoin] is actually the most effective accountability mechanism for deficit spending."

No, we cannot establish a "rules-based international order" through voluntary coordination and cooperation among nations. But can we obtain a "rules-based international order" from a decentralized, cryptographically based internet protocol?

Bitcoin operates on an "if...then..." principle. To me, this sounds like a "rules-based international order." Doesn't Ethereum extend the same principle to Turing-complete smart contracts?

Despite the current atmosphere of despair and negativity in the cryptocurrency industry, I remain convinced that we have yet to fully explore the potential of smart contracts.

Therefore, we may not be able to obtain a "rules-based international order" from the United Nations.

Perhaps we will obtain it from an unexpected place.

Perhaps we will get it from Ethereum.