Sam Callahan says the U.S. dollar has shed at least 20% of its purchasing power in just five years, measured against the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge. Core PCE inflation has averaged 3.7% over that stretch. Callahan's conclusion is blunt: financial repression isn't coming — it's already happening, and policy is "working great. It's just not working for the people."
The bond market problem nobody wants to price
The backdrop Callahan points to is the steepest drawdown in the history of the U.S. bond market. For decades Treasuries were the risk-free anchor of every portfolio. That anchor has dragged. When the safest asset in the world loses money on a total-return basis for an extended stretch, the math behind savings, pensions and reserve management stops adding up.
Callahan's read is that the market hasn't fully absorbed what that means for the dollar. A 20% hit to purchasing power over five years is slow enough that most people don't notice it month to month. It's fast enough that it compounds into a real problem over a decade.
Why Bitcoin doesn't need a rate cut
The common assumption is that Bitcoin rallies when the Fed eases and struggles when it tightens. Callahan doesn't buy it. He argues Bitcoin doesn't need rate cuts to succeed — the driver is fiscal dominance, not monetary policy.
That distinction matters in 2026. The global debt binge has left governments with few options. Cutting spending is politically painful. Raising taxes is worse. Letting inflation run while keeping real rates negative is the path of least resistance, and Callahan frames currency debasement as the easy way out that policymakers keep choosing.
If he's right, the Fed's next move matters less than the size of the debt stack behind it.
Gold, Bitcoin and the dollar as rival pillars
Callahan frames reserves as three pillars: gold, Bitcoin and the U.S. dollar. Gold has spent this year acting as what he calls a "monetary protest" — central banks and investors moving toward metal as confidence in policy erodes. The Bank for International Settlements and the broader question of central bank credibility sit underneath that trade.
Bitcoin slots into the same conversation, but with a different profile. It's newer, more volatile, and far less accepted by the institutions that manage reserves. Callahan's argument is that the demand driver is the same: a search for assets that can't be debased by a policy committee.
Brazil and the treasury-company question
The discussion also turns to Brazil and whether the country is ready for a Bitcoin treasury company. That's a meaningful test. Treasury-company models have taken hold in the U.S. and parts of Asia, but they depend on deep capital markets, willing lenders and a regulatory framework that doesn't treat corporate Bitcoin holdings as a red flag.
Brazil has the market depth. Whether it has the regulatory appetite is a separate question, and one the facts don't settle.
MSCI and the permanence argument
MSCI's exclusion of certain entities comes up too. Callahan's response is that "Bitcoin is permanent." Index providers can keep Bitcoin-adjacent companies out of their benchmarks. They can't make the asset disappear, and every exclusion is a signal about how traditional finance is still drawing lines around the sector.
Callahan's closing line is that all roads lead to currency debasement. The next test is whether the data keeps proving him right — and whether Brazil's regulators move on the treasury-company question before the next index review forces the issue.
