Earlier this week, we briefly touched on the secular shift that decentralized technologies, programmable economic agents, and algorithmic governance represent.
Is this just about making finance more transparent or efficient?
No - the true unlock lies in the largest upgrade of institutional and societal structures since the digital age began.
After several years of research, here is what I’ve come to realize: we’re seeing multiple long-term cycles converging towards the limits — and potential exhaustion — of centralized systems.
Is it mere coincidence that several great minds, each reasoning from different theoretical premises, agree on a similar diagnosis?
Ray Dalio: the Big Debt Cycle.
Neil Howe: the Fourth Turning.
George Friedman: the Institutional and Socio-Economic Cycle.
Peter Turchin: the Structural-Demographic Theory.
If these frameworks independently signal a looming structural reset, it would be reckless not to pay attention.
Now, and History is our teacher here, most people will not switch mental models until compelled by some form of crisis or external pressure.
The coming transition may feel abrupt, even violent: a potentially unpleasant experience, as old structures give way to new equilibria. Call it pessimism — I call it preparation.
If we accept this premise, how should visionary families, frontier entrepreneurs, or policy leaders position themselves?
Three scenarios to choose from:
1/ Cling to the closing cycle.
2/ Prepare for turbulence, but wait passively for the dust to settle.
3/ Lead the next acceleration phase - early, deliberately, and with agency.
Some founders, for example, will chase today’s low-hanging fruit - say stablecoins - optimizing for friction and efficiency in the current markets, but missing the broader canvas. That’s the opportunity cost.
To create the conditions for the next Golden Age, we need to build symbiotic human-AI economies and next-generation governance engines right now.
Let’s be clear: the promise also comes with risks.
New concentrations of power. Digital gatekeepers. Unintended consequences that could simply replicate the very challenges we hope to solve.
That’s why the PACE framework isn’t just about embracing the frontier. It’s about intentionally designing protocols and institutions where trust is broad-based, and technology enhances — not replaces — human agency, purpose, and inclusion.
If you see yourself in this challenge, welcome! There’s a great deal we can unpack together.