The Algorithm of Power: Milei, Trump, and the Crypto Specter

The recent controversy surrounding Javier Milei and the cryptocurrency $LIBRA has reignited a fundamental question about the relationship between politics and the digital economy: Can a political leader use their influence to shape markets without consequences? What happened in Argentina is not an isolated incident; its echoes resonate in experiences like Donald Trump’s memecoin $TRUMP, the adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador, and the failed experiment of Venezuela’s Petro.

Milei, who has built his discourse on a radical exaltation of economic liberalism, promoted the cryptocurrency $LIBRA on his social media, claiming it would foster economic growth in Argentina. Within hours, the currency skyrocketed in value, only to crash abruptly. This scheme resembles the pump-and-dump phenomenon, a speculative strategy that, contrary to its libertarian narrative, does not empower citizens but rather traps them in market volatility.

Trump’s case is a striking parallel. In 2024, the former Republican president launched his own memecoin, which also experienced a speculative surge followed by a collapse. The fundamental difference lies in the fact that Trump, from his position as a businessman and media figure, capitalized on the phenomenon without jeopardizing the economic stability of a country. Milei, on the other hand, acted as a sitting president, generating a political scandal that has led to investigations and possible legal consequences.

El Salvador’s case, however, shows a more institutionalized approach to crypto adoption. Nayib Bukele bet on Bitcoin as legal tender, purchased national reserves, and created a state-run digital wallet, aiming to attract foreign investment and reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar. However, market volatility and public resistance have cast doubt on the experiment’s success. Unlike $LIBRA, Bitcoin is a decentralized asset with a track record, but its forced adoption in the economy has generated similar skepticism.

Venezuela’s Petro is perhaps the most drastic example of state failure with cryptocurrencies. Created by Maduro’s government to evade sanctions and stabilize hyperinflation, it never managed to consolidate as a real currency. Its centralized nature and lack of trust in the regime doomed it to irrelevance, revealing that a cryptocurrency cannot be sustained by mere decree.

These examples reveal a growing trend of political leaders using cryptocurrencies as tools for propaganda, speculation, or financial engineering. Without clear regulations or long-term strategies, these experiments expose the population to unnecessary risks disguised as promises of economic independence. In Milei’s case, his involvement in the crypto ecosystem reinforces the idea that extreme libertarianism, in practice, is far from empowering society and closer to functioning as a speculative trap.

Adding to this is a relevant philosophical component: Money, in its digital evolution, has taken on a theological character, becoming a kind of abstract divinity that promises economic salvation. In this framework, figures like Milei and Bukele adopt the role of financial freedom prophets, even though their experiments ultimately reveal the limits of economic autonomy in a globalized capitalist system. Argentina’s history, with its tradition of quasi-currencies during times of crisis, could serve as a precedent for understanding that cryptocurrencies, far from being an escape from state control, can become new instruments of financial domination.

Additionally, Argentina’s case and the IMF’s pressure to prohibit the use of cryptocurrencies in its debt restructuring agreement reinforce the idea that monetary sovereignty still depends on the rules of the global financial system. However, since Milei took office in 2023, his administration has shown a more favorable approach toward digital assets, generating tensions with the IMF. While the government seeks to relax regulations to encourage cryptocurrency adoption, the IMF continues to warn about the risks of lack of oversight. In this context, Argentina’s financial autonomy debate continues to evolve, shaped by the need for international agreements and the volatility of the crypto ecosystem. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s decentralization also proves paradoxical: despite its narrative of independence, over 80% of its mining is concentrated in a few entities with significant control over the network, reducing the supposed fairness of the crypto ecosystem.

The growing interest in central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) in Latin America and the Caribbean is also a key factor in this debate. According to the IMF, while cryptocurrencies continue to be used in the region with varying levels of regulation and acceptance, governments are exploring the issuance of state-backed digital currencies as a way to regain financial control and mitigate the risks associated with the volatility of traditional cryptocurrencies. This suggests a paradigm shift where, instead of outright banning cryptocurrencies, states may choose to offer centralized alternatives to compete with them.

The impact of these decisions is not merely theoretical. In everyday life, Argentine citizens have turned to cryptocurrencies as a refuge from inflation, while others have fallen into speculative schemes driven by false promises of stability. Testimonies from small investors affected by the volatility of $LIBRA show how the lack of regulation turns these assets into a high-risk playing field where only a few win.

On the other hand, the rise of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and smart contracts presents a real alternative to the traditional financial system. However, instead of promoting structural tools that could challenge the system, figures like Milei or Trump have chosen to promote short-term speculative tokens.

In the end, art and the digital economy share an essential premise: both can generate new disruptive languages and dynamics or be absorbed by pre-existing power structures. However, what appears to be a revolution often hides a form of silent extraction. Just as conceptual art transformed the artwork into an idea and then into a market transaction, cryptocurrencies have turned the promise of decentralization into a tool for data capture, speculation, and control.

Our digital lives are no longer confined to electronic devices but permeate every aspect of our physical reality. Digital intelligence—the ability to navigate the technological landscape with discernment—has become essential in a world where data is the new currency of power. The case of Worldcoin, with its futuristic aesthetic and iris-scanning ritual, is revealing: it presents itself as an act of financial inclusion but, in practice, subordinates individuals to venture capital interests. In this context, true sovereignty does not lie merely in owning digital assets but in understanding their implications, protecting privacy, and demanding transparency in the infrastructures that sustain them. Just as in art, radicality is measured by its ability to resist commodification, in the digital economy, true emancipation will depend on our ability not only to consume technology but to shape it with critical and ethical awareness. The central question remains: Are we truly participating in a real emancipation, or are we simply validating new forms of dependence disguised as innovation?

For now, in Argentina, Milei’s experiment has proven that the promised "financial freedom" remains an illusion for most. The digital economy oscillates between the utopia of decentralization and the reality of a new data feudalism, where financial autonomy is nothing more than an algorithmic mirage. Like a global casino disguised as a revolution, it offers the illusion of control while reinforcing invisible and increasingly sophisticated power structures.

The real question is not whether this system can change, but whether we can decipher its rules before we are programmed to accept them. In this battle for the future of money, there is no neutrality: we either become the architects of our own digital sovereignty or remain mere subjects of a code written against us. Whoever does not understand the code will be programmed by it.