Something fascinating is happening in Burkina. Foreign powers keep trying to destabilize what they call the “second poorest country in the world”, but maybe it’s not as poor as we were led to believe.
When I travel across Africa, I see a striking contradiction.
A continent holding 40% of the world’s gold reserves borrows money in dollars. A printed paper from Washington holds more perceived value than the gold beneath our feet.
The gold standard once anchored global currencies to physical metal. One dollar equaled a specific weight in gold. You could exchange paper for metal at any time.
That changed in 1971.
President Nixon ended dollar convertibility to gold. With a single decision, money transformed from “as good as gold” to “good because we say so.”
Yet most nations still price their natural resources in dollars. Gold miners in Burkina Faso don’t sell their gold in local currency. They sell it in dollars.
The question is not whether this system works. The question is who it works for.
When a nation rich in gold must borrow in dollars, it reveals something profound about global power. Money is not neutral. Currency is control.
The dollar dominates global trade for three reasons: → Military might backs American currency → Financial systems are built around dollar supremacy → Alternatives have been systematically undermined
But a growing number of countries now question this arrangement. Russia sells energy in rubles. China settles trade in yuan. African nations explore gold-backed regional currencies.
Trust is shifting.
In Burkina Faso, local miners understand an essential truth: gold holds intrinsic value regardless of what currencies rise or fall. A gram of gold bought a fine suit in Roman times. It still does today.
Meanwhile, every fiat currency in history has eventually lost most of its intrinsic value.
My years in finance taught me that systems persist until they don’t. The dollar’s supremacy seems permanent — until suddenly it isn’t.
The coming decades will force us to reconsider basic assumptions about value. What if nations valued their own resources more than foreign currencies? What if technology enabled direct ownership of real assets without intermediaries?
These aren’t theoretical questions. They’re about economic freedom.
The path from resource extraction to shared prosperity requires questioning why we trust some instruments of value over others. And who benefits from that trust.
This exploration begins in the gold fields of Burkina and ends with a fundamental reassessment of value itself.
When did we start trusting currency so much?
The global financial order was designed at a specific moment in time.
July 1944. The world was still at war. Representatives from 44 allied nations gathered at a hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire.
They came to build a new financial system. They left having crowned a king.
The Bretton Woods agreement established the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Every other currency would be pegged to the dollar. The dollar would be pegged to gold at $35 per ounce.
This was political power translated into financial terms.
The U.S. emerged from World War II with two critical advantages: → Most of the world’s gold reserves → The only major industrial base not destroyed by war
No other nation could back its currency with sufficient gold. The dollar became the only practical choice for global trade.
Then came August 15, 1971.
President Nixon ended dollar convertibility to gold with a 17-minute television address. Foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for U.S. gold.
This was a fundamental redefinition of money itself.
The dollar became a pure fiat currency, backed only by trust in the U.S. government. Every other currency became a derivative of that trust.
Yet the dollar didn’t collapse. It strengthened.
The U.S. negotiated with Saudi Arabia and OPEC nations to price oil exclusively in dollars. This created the “petrodollar” system that forces every nation to acquire dollars to purchase energy.
Central banks worldwide continued holding dollars as reserves. International loans and bonds were denominated in dollars. Global trade settled in dollars.
The system survived because alternatives seemed worse than the monopoly.
But… why is there still so much gold in Burkina Faso?
Burkina Faso sits on mountains of gold. Literally.
The country produced over 60,000 kilograms of gold last year. This makes it Africa’s fifth-largest gold producer. Gold represents 80% of national exports.
The wealth beneath their soil is undeniable. The poverty above it is unconscionable.
Despite this mineral abundance, Burkina Faso remains one of the world’s poorest nations. Nearly 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. Basic infrastructure — roads, electricity, clean water — remains inadequate in many regions.
This is the predictable outcome of a system designed to extract value rather than create it.
Foreign mining companies extract gold using equipment and expertise from abroad. They pay taxes that represent a fraction of the metal’s true value. The gold leaves the country. The profit follows.
Local communities see minimal benefit from the resources beneath their feet.
The pattern repeats across resource-rich Africa. Congo has trillions in mineral wealth but remains desperately poor. Nigeria has oil but imports refined petroleum products.
Burkina Faso’s government has recognized this fundamental imbalance.
Recent initiatives aim to reclaim national wealth: → Nationalizing key gold mines → Building the country’s first gold refinery → Requiring mining companies to hold accounts with local banks
These efforts face significant challenges. Mining companies threaten to leave. Western governments apply diplomatic pressure. International financial institutions make dire warnings.
The underlying message is clear: challenging the established order comes with consequences.
But the status quo has consequences too. A nation that cannot benefit from its own resources cannot develop. A people who watch their wealth leave in foreign hands will eventually demand change.
Why do we still trust the dollar?
The dollar’s power rests on three pillars: perception, infrastructure, and enforcement.
First comes the perception of stability.
The U.S. maintains sophisticated institutions — the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, and regulatory agencies. They project an image of reliability. Markets believe the U.S. will honor its debts. This belief becomes self-fulfilling.
But perception is not reality. The U.S. national debt exceeds $35 trillion. The country routinely threatens to default during political standoffs. Inflation erodes purchasing power steadily over time.
Next is unmatched liquidity.
The dollar flows everywhere. It trades in massive volumes 24 hours daily. When a Malaysian company wants to pay a Brazilian supplier, they typically use dollars instead of ringgit or reais.
This universal acceptance creates convenience. But convenience comes at a cost: dependency.
When countries need dollars for trade, they must either export to the U.S. or borrow dollars at interest rates they don’t control. This creates a subtle form of economic vassalage.
The third pillar is network effects.
Financial systems worldwide are built for dollars. SWIFT, the global messaging system for bank transfers, primarily facilitates dollar transactions. Trade contracts default to dollars. Global commodity prices are quoted in dollars.
Changing this system isn’t like choosing a different brand. It’s like trying to convert all highways while cars are still driving on them.
The entrenchment shows in the numbers. The dollar represents 58% of global reserves in 2024, down from 65% in 2014. This decline is real but gradual.
Yet beneath the surface, tectonic shifts are underway.
Central banks are diversifying reserves more aggressively than headline numbers suggest. Russia has largely de-dollarized its economy. China has created parallel payment systems like CIPS to reduce SWIFT dependency.
The dollar remains dominant not because alternatives don’t exist, but because the transition costs seem prohibitive.
Until they don’t.
Finally, how do we re-evaluate value?
I spent years inside traditional finance before founding Ubuntu Tribe. I learned one fundamental truth: systems that seem permanent can collapse overnight.
The current monetary regime is younger than most retirees.
The post-1971 dollar system has existed for just over 50 years. In the long arc of economic history, this is nothing. Every previous monetary system eventually failed or transformed.
Change now comes from multiple directions: → Central banks are exploring digital currencies → Resource-rich nations are asserting monetary sovereignty → Technology is enabling asset tokenization without intermediaries
These forces converge around a simple question: what if value could flow directly between people without permission from central authorities?
Gold-backed digital currencies offer one answer. By combining gold’s intrinsic value with digital transferability, they merge ancient trust with modern convenience.
This isn’t about nostalgia for the gold standard. It’s about reimagining ownership.
When someone in Burkina Faso can own a fraction of a gram of gold through their phone, they gain independence from both local currency devaluation and dollar hegemony.
When artisanal miners can tokenize their production directly, they capture more value from their labor.
When communities can build financial systems around local resources, they reduce dependency on external debt.
Geopolitical realignments accelerate these trends. The BRICS nations actively develop alternatives to dollar-denominated trade. The African Continental Free Trade Agreement creates opportunities for regional payment systems.
About Author:-
Mamadou Kwidjim Toure , a Global Finance Expert and Philanthropist Pen down his thoughts on Burkina. Foreign powers are trying to destabilize what they call the “second poorest country in the world”, but maybe it’s not as poor as we believe. For more such articles follow mamadou
These developments are contested.
The dollar system has powerful defenders. They’ll use every tool — from financial sanctions to military pressure — to maintain the status quo. The transition will be neither smooth nor peaceful.
But the direction is clear. A world of multiple, competing currency systems is emerging. Some will be state-issued. Others will be backed by real assets. Some will be pure digital innovations.
This diversity is healthy. Monetary monocultures create systemic risk. They concentrate power in few hands. They disconnect value from underlying productive capacity.
The future belongs to those who question assumptions about value.
Why should people trust abstract promises over physical reality?
Why should resources leave their countries of origin without benefiting local communities?
Why should intermediaries control access to wealth?
The answers to these questions won’t come from Washington or Wall Street. They’ll emerge from people reimagining what money means from the ground up.
Trust in currency ultimately reflects trust in the systems that issue it. As those systems evolve, so will our understanding of value itself.
