“Crypto will have won when you use blockchain without knowing it”: An Interview with Marieke Flament
Drift Signal #254
Marieke Flament and I first met in London, back when she was General Manager for Circle in Europe. Our professional relationship then deepened when we worked together at Mettle, the NatWest neobank which she headed whilst I served on the steering committee.
Since then, Marieke has become my go-to person whenever I need to test ideas or understand something obscure in relation to crypto. She brings rare clarity to complex topics through her unique combination of technical knowledge, business acumen and leadership experience across traditional finance and the crypto ecosystem.
As things are moving very fast in this space these days, and Marieke herself publishes extensively on the topic (mostly on LinkedIn), I thought it was high time we had a wide-ranging discussion for a general update about where crypto stands at the moment and where it's heading.
In this conversation, we explore everything from the fundamentals of blockchain technology to the geopolitical implications of stablecoins, the emergence of national crypto reserves, and the fascinating intersection between crypto and AI. Marieke's perspective as someone who has led both traditional financial institutions and major crypto organisations offers invaluable insights into how these worlds are increasingly converging.
Whether you're a crypto enthusiast or simply curious about how blockchain might reshape our financial future, this interview provides a thoughtful, accessible look at the technology beyond the hype. Read along 👇
Marieke’s Background and Experience
Hi Marieke! Could you briefly introduce yourself? You’ve worked in many different parts of the world, and your focus has evolved quite a bit—from the travel industry to banking, and then to crypto. How would you describe your background and experience?
I'm French, a computer science engineer by background. I started my career in China, working for LVMH at a time when the company was scaling up very rapidly. Then, realising that as an engineer I needed to deepen my understanding of business, I went back to business school, then worked in strategy consulting and the travel industry.
There was a pivotal moment in my career when I went to work for Circle, which today is one the largest stablecoin issuers (and soon to go public—though likely rethinking it amid the looming trade war). After that, I had the opportunity to lead a neobank in England (Mettle, which is part of NatWest), and then to lead a crypto foundation (the NEAR Foundation).
Today, I describe myself as a recovering fintech and crypto CEO. I'm a portfolio advisor and board member doing angel investing in emerging technologies, such as AI, across different businesses. I help startups, and I'm passionate about trying to figure out how we help the next generation of startups scale up and grow. I closely follow what's happening within crypto, AI and the frontier between both. I'm just very curious in general.
The NEAR Foundation and Crypto Structures
Can you tell us more about the NEAR Foundation? What exactly is a foundation in the context of the crypto world?
The crypto world often follows a structure with two key entities at play. A for-profit engineering lab develops the underlying technology and protocols, along with some of the initial products built on them. Meanwhile, a not-for-profit foundation manages the token treasury and funds raised against it, aiming to foster a sustainable ecosystem.
A crypto foundation’s treasury is vital to a crypto ecosystem. Tokens are issued and deposited into the treasury, with some sold to independent parties to generate additional funds. The foundation then manages these assets—both cash and tokens—to drive adoption of the underlying blockchain technology across various sectors. When I was heading the NEAR Foundation, which supported a “layer-1” blockchain as ambitious as Ethereum in scope and scale, its treasury was valued at over $2 billion.
You can think of these entities as one building the infrastructure and one doing investments to grow business on top of the infrastructure. The responsibility of the foundation is to think through growing a sustainable ecosystem. How do you make sure that your ecosystem can function? Do you have a community that has the tools it needs? Do you have enough R&D development happening? Do you have enough investments in different verticals? And ultimately, do you have a self-sustainable community that can continue without foundation funds? Most crypto ecosystems have that structure. Interestingly this structure is also something we are seeing in the world of AI.
The Basics of Crypto
Can we go back to the basics of crypto, which you’ve experienced first-hand through your work with both Circle and the NEAR Foundation? Why did it come into being? How did it emerge? And what motivated the people who created the space in the first place?
I think the first moment is 2008 when Bitcoin was created, and Bitcoin was created in the backdrop of the financial crisis. If you read that first white paper, it is very much thinking about how you can have digital peer-to-peer exchange with people without needing existing banks.
That evolved into a group of people thinking, “Well, actually this is good, but you cannot do that much. Bitcoin allows you to basically send coins back and forth, all sustained by a dedicated blockchain, but you can't do much with it.”
The next transformational moment for the industry was the birth of Ethereum. The best way to think about Ethereum is that it enables the creation of a mega decentralised computer. Now you can code programs on the Ethereum blockchain (which is much more sophisticated than Bitcoin’s) and start doing different things that are smarter than just sending or receiving a token. This additional level of intelligence on top of a blockchain is called “smart contracts”. Smart contracts are self-executing programmes stored on a blockchain that automatically enforce and execute agreements based on predefined rules, without the need for agents, intermediaries, or a central authority.
Then, as people began hitting the limitations of Ethereum—“it's not fast enough, it's not cheap enough, it's not good enough”—we witnessed the emergence of other so-called Layer-1 blockchains competing with Ethereum on enabling smart contracts, like Solana, Cardano, NEAR (of which foundation I was in charge of), and others.
At their core, most of these alternatives operate on a similar principle: each has its own blockchain with an associated token that enables transactions on that particular chain. For instance, you need $SOL tokens in order to use the Solana blockchain, and you need $NEAR tokens in order to use the NEAR blockchain. These different ecosystems all compete to be better, cheaper, and faster at performing certain functions. Interestingly, there are clear parallels with today's AI landscape, where we see similar competition among various large language models.
That's the origin of the whole space—from the birth of Bitcoin to the ability to do more things (that’s Ethereum), and then this push for doing things that Ethereum does, but in a better, cheaper, more transparent way.
Trust, Sovereignty and Banking
In a way, Bitcoin was a statement of mistrust. The global financial crisis in 2008 exposed how large banks and the financial services industry had failed us, so there was a need to rebuild financial services on an infrastructure that doesn’t rely on those institutions—one that, in a sense, we can own ourselves. Would you say that’s a fair assessment?
I think it's very fair to describe it that way. Even today, when you look at some of the use cases for people who've seen their bank accounts closed or who've seen very high rates of inflation, it is still used for that purpose. If you are Greek and you've lived through having your bank account either closed or not having the ability to withdraw a certain amount of money, you've lived through that, and there’s a trauma that comes with that. If you're in countries where inflation is ramping up, you want to have control over your assets and not be dependent on intermediaries such as banks or an authority such as the central bank or the national treasury.
So yes, the trauma that was the 2008 global financial crisis marked the birth of what eventually became a movement.
By the way, it wasn’t always like this. There was a time when banking was much easier—opening an account, managing your money, using it freely. Things became far more difficult after 9/11, when governments began requiring banks to do a better job of tracing funds and detecting dirty money used to finance terrorism. So what does the crypto world have to say in response? Can it deliver both—collectively preventing money laundering and the financing of terrorism, while also allowing individuals to truly own their money without relying on large banks or governments?
There's a common misconception that cryptocurrency enables untraceable transactions, when in reality blockchain technology offers unprecedented levels of transparency. Every transaction is permanently recorded on a public ledger that anyone can examine, creating a complete audit trail that traditional banking systems simply don't provide.
Law enforcement agencies like the FBI and others have become increasingly sophisticated at tracing illicit activity on blockchains. They use specialised tools like Chainalysis and Elliptic to follow transaction paths and connect wallets to real identities. This is how authorities have successfully recovered millions in stolen funds and caught major criminals like the Silk Road operator.
The regulatory framework is also evolving. When you use exchanges like Coinbase, you go through the same Know Your Customer (KYC) or Know Your Business (KYB) processes as traditional banking. Every time you convert crypto back to dollars or other fiat currencies, those compliance controls are in place.
While bad actors do exist in the space—primarily using stablecoins like Tether for illicit activities—they represent a small fraction of overall usage. Studies show only about 0.14% of all on-chain transactions are related to criminal activity. Regulation is actively addressing these issues through frameworks like MiCA in Europe and the Stablecoin TRUST Act in the US.
The unique advantage of blockchain is that it delivers this traceability while still giving you ownership and sovereignty over your funds. For such a system to function in a decentralised manner, we need thorough traceability, otherwise any rogue agent can abuse and ultimately destroy the whole system.
It’s as if everyone is watching everyone else—and when that everyone becomes law enforcement, it works all the same. You don't need permission from a bank to access or transfer your money—you control it directly through your wallet. And new technologies like Zero-knowledge proofs are being developed to further enhance privacy while maintaining compliance, allowing you to prove you've been properly vetted without revealing your actual identity. However, when law enforcement is determined to follow the money, they can reverse-engineer the system, trace the transactions recorded on the blockchain, and uncover your identity.
Centralised Players in a Decentralised System
We both read Number Go Up by Zeke Faux, a book about the crypto industry written and published at the height of the FTX scandal. The author sets out to expose the vulnerabilities of Tether, a major player in the stablecoin space. As Zeke explains, Tether—at least at the time—served as a central hub where crypto tokens could be converted into fiat currency and vice versa. Yet it was not cooperating with government KYC requirements, making it a powerful tool for scammers, fraudsters, money launderers, and potentially even terrorists.
So the questions are: Can we afford a fully decentralised, user-owned system without relying on centralised players like Coinbase, Binance, and Tether to manage key parts of it? And if we do need those intermediaries, how can we ensure the same level of traceability and transparency that has been critical in the fight against terrorism and other crimes?
Tether has long been surrounded by theories and conspiracy rumours. The reality is that even today, it remains one of the few major stablecoins that still hasn’t provided a full, transparent audit when asked. If you think of their size and compare it to a bank, you'd wish there was enough audit, traceability and transparency to confirm the reserves were there.
You need to realise that as of December 2024, Tether holds $113bn of assets in US treasury bonds. In 2024 alone, they bought $33 billion worth of US Treasury bonds, making them the seventh-largest buyer globally—just behind sovereign buyers such as Japan, China, the United Kingdom, and oil-rich Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And an audit of Tether as a whole seems to be on the way, although they’ve been saying that for a while.
You can make many parallels with other industries where you see actors coming up out of nowhere. The way they start might be very questionable. Then the way they evolve is to fall in line. I would put players like Binance in that category. Binance started operating on the fringe, and is now moving towards full compliance.
I think there's a whole theme which I find fascinating—the completely decentralised crypto “degen” world, where people seek full independence from the traditional financial system. What future does this fringe world have when you look at the fact that today, traditional finance and DeFi (“Decentralised Finance”, a term used for the decentralised, crypto-powered financial system that has emerged in the wake of Bitcoin) are starting to merge?
There are more and more large use cases of adoption by major banks or very large players like BlackRock which are starting to leverage that. Trade finance is one example. Much like the Venetian merchant trade of the 13th to 15th centuries, which had to organise the flow of money over vast distances, all the way to the Far East and then back, while keeping track of transactions, ensuring the integrity of the system, and preventing fraud. Crypto can help a lot with that!
The theory might be that whatever falls in line with regulation and whatever comes within that framework will continue to thrive, and whatever doesn't fall in line becomes fringe and not fully adopted because very large volumes are going to come from the institutional world. Which, if you go full circle, is ironic because that's not exactly how the movement actually started. The tension within the ecosystem endures to this day.
But I think it's natural. It's an industry that started with absolutely no regulation or framework, and now part of it is starting to go back in line with regulation. It will be interesting to see what happens with the things that don't fall in line. Will they still have use cases? What will those use cases be?
It will also be interesting to see how regulation evolves, globally. The industry has put a lot of effort into helping shape regulation in the US, and so far while there is a lot of noise from the US, there is also genuine concern on what will actually be delivered and how it will shape the industry. Will this lead to a gigantic casino game that ends in a major crash, or will crypto become the foundation of the future of mainstream finance? Will it only benefit the US, or will it enable global adoption?
I guess what I meant with my question is this: can crypto be completely insulated from legacy institutions, or do you always need an intermediary like Coinbase, BlackRock, or Tether to bridge the gap between the crypto world and the real world? And if the latter is the case, what’s the point? You can pretend to be an owner in the crypto world, but you cease to truly own anything when you have to rely on Coinbase or Tether to convert your tokens into currency that you can actually use. So, again, what’s the point of all this? Is it just a playground where you can temporarily feel good playing the sovereign and say “f**k you” to the government, when, in reality, you’re still bound by the system it oversees?
I think it's more than that because there is a very large, growing number of people who are actually putting their wealth into crypto because they don't see that fiat currencies are holding their value. It's a storage of value. They might go through Coinbase or similar platforms. There are even ID cards that exist where you don't need a bank account—you can have a MetaMask card, literally link your crypto to it and pay for your sandwich.
Obviously, the real world still operates in fiat currencies. When you need to participate in the real world, you need to go there. But there is an increasing number of people and very large amounts of wealth that are more and more stacked into crypto, and more cases of payments done in crypto. Why are people doing that? It goes back to the argument of “What is the US dollar? What is it backed by? Do you trust that or do you trust another thing to be a store of value?” The same way you might have wanted to have gold under your bed, and now you're thinking about what's the digital equivalent.
Tokens vs Infrastructure
Can we clarify the distinction between tokens and blockchain? Tokens are designed to drive network effects—whether by positioning Bitcoin as a currency or Ethereum as a platform for smart contracts—by incentivising users to promote adoption and increase their value. However, there seems to be a disconnect between these network effects and the actual scaling of the underlying technology.
From the outside, crypto often appears to be pure speculation. When critics point this out, citing scandals like FTX, crypto advocates argue they are building essential infrastructure. But where is the real connection? Is meaningful infrastructure actually being developed, or are tokens merely speculative instruments, detached from any real value creation?
Let's go back to basics and terminology. There is blockchain and there's cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies are what you call tokens, and then the blockchain is the underlying infrastructure. For the technology to work, you do need the tokens. If you do a transaction, you need to pay a micro fee to secure that transaction and for that transaction to happen. The system needs the tokens for it to function and be secured.
There's a whole array within the industry of what's called “tokenomics”, which is “what are the sustainable ways that the token exists and why does it exist?” Playing devil's advocate, I think it's fair to say that rationally, the transaction should be cheaper and cheaper. It's like when you want your car to run—the gas fee is like petrol. If you want your car to run, you need to put petrol in it, but you can run longer distances if your petrol is less expensive.
What's interesting is that the whole hype or bets that people are making on tokens, especially what is called Alt-coins, is making them decorrelated from real usage. I would say that's probably very true with the exception of Ethereum and Bitcoin which are not Alt-coins. And as far as Ethereum, if you're very much into the crypto space, a lot of people would say isn't doing well.
You mean not doing well in terms of price, like the token prices are going down or stagnating?
Exactly, and I think that's where the industry's key metrics are wrong because they're looking at total value locked and price of the token. I think that's a mistake. It's as if you were a publicly listed company and all you look at is your stock price, but then you don't look at your fundamentals such as: do you have customers? Are they joining your ecosystem? Are they using your infrastructure? And are they sticking around? Do we have a strategy that delivers sustainable growth?
Some players in the industry are starting to look at monthly active engaged users and whether real use cases are being built rather than obsessing over token prices. My assumption or bet is that at some point all of that will recalibrate because there's currently a disconnect. It's a bit like when Facebook was first publicly listed—there was a big gap between the high price and the relatively low number of users. Here it feels even bigger.
Now, within the hundreds of protocols that exist, some are starting to attract tens or hundreds of millions of active users. But the point you raise is important because very often, when people invest without really understanding how the industry works, they invest in tokens because they hear things, not based on the metrics or real activity happening. So yes, there is a decorrelation between the two. I hope at some point it corrects itself and starts looking at better metrics that are actual indicators of value.
When crypto normalises and there’s a convergence between the tokens and the underlying blockchain, do you think people will recognise that things have truly changed? Or will it be like some hidden architecture that’s completely different, but people go about their lives without really caring about owning anything?
I've always thought that it will be a real win when you use blockchain without knowing you're using it. That's real adoption. You don't need to know that an application runs on a specific protocol. It's like, do you know that you're using SMTP or HTTPS? No, you don't care. You're sending an email, you're using a website, and it works.
I think that's when the technology will really be adopted, with the exception of Bitcoin. Bitcoin in its design has a few particularities—one being that we don't know who created it, which means that no one “controls it”. The other being that you can't do much with it except for its core value proposition of sending and receiving tokens. But for the rest, especially protocols that want to be better, cheaper, faster, more transparent, ultimately the real win should be that there are useful, functioning applications on them, regardless of how much the token is worth, and you don't even realise you're using the underlying technology.
Stablecoins and Real-World Applications
You’ve mentioned that stablecoins are probably the most promising application of crypto technology. Are we close to a large-scale, proven use case where stablecoins contribute to making the circulation of money faster, cheaper, and more secure?
Absolutely. Let's differentiate stablecoins from other crypto. A stablecoin is in this category of real-world assets being put on a blockchain, which is very different from a crypto token created from nothing. Here, you’re taking fiat currency like USD or EUR, which has value in the real world, and creating a digital token backed by it on the blockchain to gain traceability and transparency regarding where it’s going. Stablecoins belong to a category called RWA tokenisation—“Real World Asset tokenisation”.
Can you explain what you mean by “putting it on the blockchain”? Is it that there’s a representation of the real-world asset on the blockchain? What economist W. Brian Arthur calls a “Second Economy”?
Yes. With Circle, every time you buy one USDC (that's what Circle's stablecoin is called), there is one dollar that's being put in a bank account in a real bank. Therefore, what you have is a reflection, a mirroring of a real dollar being put on a blockchain—much like a clearing platform.
Why would you do that? Because if you want to move one real dollar in the real world, it might take days. Imagine you're in Latin America where 90% of business is done in US dollars and you have a factory, and you want to pay a partner somewhere. That's done in US dollars. Today, the movement of money is still super slow and expensive. Especially if you want to send money across borders, it's still very slow and expensive.
One major advantage of doing that on blockchain is that it can become instant. What this does is say, “Okay, the global infrastructure we have today for sending and receiving money is cumbersome, it's a patchwork, it takes ages. You’ll still use the same money (fiat currency like USD or EUR), but now you can do that on a new infrastructure that enables you to go faster and in a much better way.”
Global access to US dollars is one major use case for stablecoins. Cross-border payments is another. And then obviously, you still have a part in the DeFi world—crypto traders that we talked about before, when they do transactions, they tend to go back into US dollars. Circle has a report on their website showcasing all the use cases they have. It's really interesting to see large companies now realising that if they do their trade in USDC, it's going to be faster and cost less money. It's just a new infrastructure.
We may not realise it because we mostly operate in the Western world, where payments are easy and we’re not hindered by cross-border controls or frictions. But this isn’t the case for the majority of the population or for economic players like companies. The goal would be to have as seamless an experience with payments as we do in the European Union with SEPA, for instance.
Correct. It's exactly that. For us, we can send and receive easily. But in many parts of the world, that is not the case. It raises an interesting question which I'm obsessed about: if stablecoin dominance is denominated in US dollars, then stablecoin adoption means even more US dollar adoption?
Network effect.
Exactly, network effect, which raises the question of what happens to other currencies? For example, euro stablecoins are nowhere to be seen. There are some projects, and I think it's fundamental for Europe to have a very strong stablecoin, but at the moment, it's not there. There's a bigger race happening to level up this entire infrastructure, facilitating commerce and business everywhere with the ease we have when we use SEPA.
Two comments about that. First, does this mean we’re expecting a more open world, which seems completely opposed to Trump’s vision of countries retreating into themselves? If we need stablecoins for seamless cross-border payments, that suggests we anticipate more cross-border transactions, which will be made easier and cheaper thanks to stablecoins, eventually leading to a boom in international trade.
Second, you’re right to point out that there will be powerful network effects, where USD stablecoins will lead to the wider use of USD, which will, in turn, strengthen the dollar. But that goes against US interests if they want to export more. You have to choose: either you want powerful stablecoins that make it easier for anyone to trade in dollars, or you want to export manufactured goods—but you can’t have both. Do these comments resonate?
They do resonate. When stablecoins really started happening, it was definitely in a pre-Trump era. I think the world has changed a lot and continues to change. If you're in charge of a company doing USD-denominated stablecoins, then broader adoption means better network effects, creating a global play where business flourishes, which in a way goes against what we're seeing or the intention of what's happening in the US.
I'm curious to see what regulations Trump pushes forward. For example, he's said he doesn't want a central bank digital currency (CBDC), but he's in favour of stablecoins. And stablecoins denominated in dollars today have two very big players: Circle (which serves US customers) and Tether (which doesn’t, but is still much larger). The jury is out on what regulation will look like and which approach it will favour, because the two big players are very different and backed by different people.
It will also be interesting to see how other governments react. I think the realisation is starting to dawn that if you don't counter that network effect by having your own network effect, then trade might be done without your currency. I'm starting to see movements on that, whether in the Middle East or in Europe, and we probably need more awareness of that reality.
Putting Real-World Assets on the Blockchain
Still on stablecoins, you mentioned that it’s about putting real-world assets on the blockchain. We discussed putting USD and EUR on the blockchain, but what other assets can be tokenised? For example, real estate, luxury goods?
All of that in theory. You can do real estate, share certificates, and art. I'm working on a project where we're putting connectivity credits on blockchain. There are projects putting carbon credits on-chain, which does a better job than the carbon credits market we have today because of its transparency. The current system has double accounting everywhere. If you can verify that a tree has grown a certain amount, which equates to specific carbon credits, and put that on-chain, you have full traceability.
So yes, you can do all of that. And the value is not in the token—the asset already exists in the real world. It's just a representation of a technology that makes transactions faster and more transparent, therefore better for accounting purposes.
So it's about removing frictions and bringing more transparency for trading anything.
Correct. And the theory also goes that you will be able to put shares on blockchain. Why are markets only open Monday to Friday? With blockchain, you can represent shares and trade them 24/7.
Crypto and Energy Markets
Can we switch to another aspect—the connection you see between crypto and energy markets? I’ve been intrigued by your comments that crypto can be used as a store of energy. What do you mean by that?
I think this applies just to Bitcoin, not every crypto. Bitcoin could be a store of value because the way the Bitcoin network works is that you need to mine mathematical problems and consume energy to generate new bitcoins. The idea could be that in a world with abundant energy, such as solar energy (which there's too much of when we don't need it and not enough when we do), you could use that excess energy.
Yes, and it's very difficult to store energy. That's key to understanding that market.
It is super difficult to store. If you can't store it in batteries, can you store it in value? You take the energy, use it to mine Bitcoin, and create value for your country. There are countries starting to do that. It raises questions about what it means if a country has Bitcoin in its reserves. I think it's an interesting concept—when there is abundant energy, instead of wasting it, you do something with it.
Basically, electricity that I don’t need at the moment is redirected towards mining bitcoins. As a result, I accumulate bitcoins, which I can later use to buy more energy when there’s a deficit in production.
Correct. It's a balancing mechanism.
Crypto and AI
The next connection is between crypto and AI. Everyone wants to link their topic to AI because it’s trendy, but is there more to it than just hype? Is there something genuinely valuable to be built by connecting the two?
First, let's acknowledge the hype. In crypto, we've seen quite a few venture capitalists that flipped from “I invest in crypto” to “I invest in AI.” So yes, there is hype and a ton of investment. When you look at the two industries, particularly in terms of attitude towards investment and valuation, there are many parallels.
But I think there are quite a few interesting connections. For example, if you take the basic concept of blockchain, which is this ability to transparently show ownership and prove that you have ownership of something, that contrasts with AI, which is creating more content that we can consume and creating things that might be fake or that we doubt. There's a relationship which could be, “Can you prove to me that this is really a picture taken with a real person with an identity?” Blockchain is a perfect vehicle for that.
It's a watermarking system.
Correct. A watermarking system. Many companies are working on this—less sexy in crypto, but very fundamental.
The other thing is, think of a world where we have AI agents that interact among themselves or with services. Those AI agents need access to money or accounts. I don't know how long it will take banks to give agents bank accounts, given how long it's taken to get humans banked. But that's another perfect use case for crypto because an AI agent could have a wallet and do microtransactions with another agent. Agents are just starting, so it may take time before we see real adoption.
The last point is more fundamental. AI breaks everything into tokens for processing data. Blockchain also looks at tokens for transactions. They're not exactly the same tokens, but the way the two technologies are structured has logical parallels.
Finally, both technologies consume a lot of energy, so they're going to compete for the same resources. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. We have choices as humans—if you have $10, do you put it on more AI computing or on mining Bitcoin? When you start competing for the same resources, we'll quickly see who values what most.
There have been AI agents that have created crypto, sent it to wallets, and started doing business. But those are more experimental. It's not a real mainstream use case yet.
So, the jury is still out on what the synergies will be between the two worlds, but there are many signs of convergence and complementarity.
I think there's lots of potential. Let's make it happen because there's lots of talk.
We probably need to wait for the AI bubble to burst. Once the dust settles, there will be some interesting ideas.
National Crypto Reserves
Let’s switch to the discussion about national crypto reserves. It’s been a fringe idea, first introduced by a pro-crypto senator in the US, Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming, who drafted a bill to create National Crypto Reserves for the US. When Trump unexpectedly decided to be pro-crypto, he endorsed the idea, though we still don’t really know what it will look like.
There have been steps taken to use crypto assets seized by US enforcement agencies and incorporate them into these strategic reserves, rather than leaving them unused. Now, as you’ve pointed out, in every country there are politicians, usually from the right or far right, talking about creating national crypto reserves. Marine Le Pen, for example, has suggested that France needs a national crypto reserve to make the country less dependent on “globalist finance,” which reveals the underlying motives—hostility towards finance and big banks, and viewing their country as enslaved by stateless global institutions.
Is this just a fringe conspiracy theory, or is there more to it? Should we expect anything meaningful from building these reserves?
I think the question has two axes. One, does it make sense? I think it makes sense if one believes that Bitcoin is the new digital gold, that it stores value, or that it's a representation of energy. You could put gold in your reserves, or you could put Bitcoin.
Assuming it makes sense, the next question is how would you do it? Governments have seized enormous amounts of Bitcoin from criminal activities. There are two arguments you can make. One is to sell it to get back your fiat currency, which Germany did recently at a lower price than what it is today. Some would say they lost money and could have reduced their debt if they'd waited. The other option is to keep it because you believe in its value as a store of value.
The other part of your question I want to address, because I think it's slightly different and extremely worrying, is what we're seeing with far-right governments, including in France. It's worrying for many reasons, including the motives behind pushing such theories, which as you mention reveal the underlying motives—hatred of finance and big banks, and seeing their country as a slave to stateless global institutions.
But there's one factor we can't underestimate: the number of people who are pro-crypto or own crypto is very large and growing. It's a political constituency that cannot be ignored. We saw that with Trump—if you alienate a big part of your base by either not addressing the topic or being anti-crypto, there's space for someone to position themselves as pro-crypto, but potentially with motives completely opposite to what the industry was created for.
Some in the industry will enthusiastically say, “Great, we finally have cheerleaders,” but they're not cheerleading for the right reasons. They're cheerleading for the opposite of what the industry was founded on. If you put this idea of traceability and transparency in the wrong hands, what does that create? The theory of doing it could be sound, but unfortunately, it's being co-opted by far-right parties for different motives.
Yes, and it becomes a litmus test. Nobody really understands what this crypto reserve is about, but you have to take a position. If far-right parties are the first to advocate for it, others may take an anti-crypto stance simply to oppose them. In the end, crypto gets abandoned to the wrong people, and we fail to make the most of it.
Europe's Play in Crypto
You alluded to Europe needing to work on creating a euro stablecoin. More generally, what is Europe’s strategy in crypto? Is there something we can do, considering all the developments in the US, or is it too difficult? Our main problem might be that our payment system works so well already that nobody sees the point of introducing crypto.
On different levels. For entrepreneurs in the industry, any rational support you would want for entrepreneurs applies. We're losing talent because now there's an American leader who is pro-crypto.
I mentioned the euro stablecoin. In the world we're in, I wonder if it would be acceptable to have an American player create a euro stablecoin, or a Chinese player create a euro stablecoin. When you think of sovereignty, there's really urgency in being able to create that infrastructure. Maybe we don't feel the need on our territory, but if we still need to interact with others, we might need to conduct those trades within that ecosystem.
Europe now has a regulatory framework called MiCA, particularly for stablecoins. Some aspects still need to be ironed out and simplified—it's a bit too complex. But the intent is good. We've paved the way, and no one else has done anything remotely close to that.
I don't think we can envision a world where AI won't have some influence with crypto. Therefore, we have to consider what that means more broadly for innovation.
Crypto's Legacy
To close, what do you think will be crypto’s legacy? What will become of it if it succeeds? You’ve said it will be a success if we don’t even realise it exists—it makes things easier, cheaper, faster, more secure, and more transparent without anyone noticing that an entire technological space made that possible. Anything to add?
If I have a crystal ball, though I might be completely off, I really think the big win, whether it takes three years or five years, is that we don't even know what works on blockchain. The one exception from that is Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin will continue to be known, but for the rest, it's infrastructure and things working on blockchain. But whether it works on NEAR or Solana or whatever—are you talking about your operating system, whether it’s Windows or Mac OS? I'm not.
The more I think about it, even with the movements we're seeing now, there's no way you can have 200 competitors that don't have enough users. It just doesn't work.
What will also undoubtedly continue to happen is the “tokenisation of everything”, a convergence of DeFi and TradFi, enabled by clearer regulation.
What Europe needs right now is to embrace crypto innovation before we fall behind. We are very good at cheerleading AI, but need to recognise that AI and blockchain will very probably have a shared future. A strong European crypto ecosystem will strengthen our financial sovereignty, while enabling us to lead and participate actively in a rapidly digitising and fragmented world. We have the talent and the technology required, and we can muster the ambition.
Sign up to Drift Signal if you don’t want to miss the next issues 🤗
From Paris, France 🇫🇷 (and Cham, Switzerland 🇨🇭)
Nicolas
Thanks for sharing a really interesting interview. I hadn't thought about Bitcoin as a form of stored energy, so that was an interesting perspective. I very much agree that the future of crypto is microtransactions by agents. This just makes so much sense. It's a change in infrastructure from something written on cobalt to something a little bit more modern. Great one.