Tin Foil Hats, Economic Reality and the Total Perspective Vortex

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

Not sure how significant this may be, but I found it interesting to note:
 


 
High level summary of the SGE issue:

Thread by @SunilRe89392848 on Thread Reader App

@SunilRe89392848: China is quietly building a digital gold system that could replace the dollar in trade. Here’s how… 1/ 💡 Did you know China runs two gold systems? 1) SHFE → futures, speculation, collateral. 2) SGE...…
threadreaderapp.com
 
Nothing to see, can listen in one tab, play around the forum in a different tab. It's an opinion piece so dyodd.

 


China aiming to replace the LBMA
 

Russian finance minister revealed details of Russian-Chinese alternative to Euroclear

Anton Siluanov emphasized that the goal is for Russia's investors to be able to freely buy securities in one country from another, without restrictions and obstacles
tass.com
 

 
A couple of nuggets on the SGE warehouse expansion plans (to support global RMB/gold trade) from Eric Yeung:



 

China Plans 4 New Gold Hubs as it Moves Forward With Global Reset​

Oct 3, 2025 #china #gold #secret
“The global financial order is tilting—and it’s not going to stop,” says Dr. Nomi Prins, former Goldman Sachs managing director and bestselling author of Collusion.
With the Shanghai Gold Exchange launching offshore vaults in Hong Kong, Singapore, Zurich, and Dubai, Prins calls it a “time zone tilt, a geographical tilt, a power tilt” that shifts gold—and power—away from the West.
“This is about redistricting the globe around the hard currency of gold,” she explains. “Central banks are diversifying away from the dollar, and gold is now the second most held reserve asset worldwide, ahead of the euro. China has been carefully sequencing this strategy for over a decade.”
As gold surges toward $4,500 and silver gains momentum, Prins sees the East tightening its grip: “More nations are moving their gold away from London and into Shanghai or Singapore. That takes supply off the market, lifts prices higher, and creates an entirely new power base.”

16:40

Chapters:
00:00 – China’s bold gold move
03:04 – Why new offshore vaults matter
05:38 – Inside China’s decade-long gold strategy
07:30 – The de-dollarization push
09:30 – Can China dethrone the LBMA?
12:38 – Gold’s next target: $4,500+
13:19 – Silver set to soar: $60 in sight
15:08 – Is China on track to overtake global finance?
 

More. Contains some interesting links. Worth a read imo.

Is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Just a Talking Shop?

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization convened for its 25th summit in Tianjin on Sept. 1, the largest gathering of leaders in the organization’s history.
warontherocks.com
 
Related but along maritime lines.

What happens when the world’s ballast currency starts to slip? - Splash247

The dollar’s wobble exposes shipping’s one-currency weakness, writes Andrew Craig-Bennett. As we all know, to generate a really big shipping crash, you must start with a banking crash. If the banks are having difficulty with that mundane banking operation, trade credit, things must be properly...
splash247.com
 
^^^

Gee, maybe offshoring everything to China and Trashkanistan wasn't so smart.

We were bound to find it out, anyway. Free and unmolested shipping on the high seas, is not a natural state. It's been a 70-year fluke, enforced by the last-standing superpower. So, all it is going to take, is another war period - which we seem to be going into - to make massive shipments of goods, prohibitively expensive.

And whoever replaces Uncle Sam as the world's policeman, probably is gonna be more interested in extracting tribute from shippers than in keeping the seas open.
 


Grok:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: compare CIPS trade volume to SWIFT for the last few years


Overview of CIPS and SWIFTCIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System) is China's RMB-denominated cross-border payment infrastructure, launched in 2015 as an alternative to global systems like SWIFT for facilitating international trade and settlements primarily in renminbi. SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is the dominant global messaging network for secure financial communications, handling instructions for the vast majority of high-value cross-border payments in multiple currencies.Key differences in scope:
  • CIPS: Focuses on RMB transactions, with growing multi-currency support; processes actual settlements.
  • SWIFT: Provides messaging for payments (not settlement itself); covers all major currencies and a broader range of financial messages (e.g., securities, FX).
Trade volumes refer to the total value of payments processed annually. Data for CIPS is readily available from official reports, while SWIFT does not publish exact total values (as it is a messaging service), but estimates are derived from daily averages reported by reliable sources like the U.S. Federal Reserve. SWIFT's volumes have remained relatively stable year-over-year due to its mature, global dominance, while CIPS has shown explosive growth (e.g., ~93% increase from 2021 to 2024).Annual Trade Volume Comparison (in USD Trillions)The table below compares annual payment values for 2021–2024 (the most recent full years with consistent data). SWIFT estimates assume ~250 trading days per year. 2020 CIPS data is included for context but omitted for SWIFT due to limited comparable estimates. 2025 data is partial (H1 only for CIPS) and not included in the table.

YearCIPS Value (USD Tn)SWIFT Value (USD Tn, Est.)CIPS as % of SWIFTYear-over-Year Growth (CIPS)
20207.25~450~1.6%+30% (from 2019)
202112.68~450~2.8%+75%
202214.03~450~3.1%+11%
202317.09~450~3.8%+22%
202424.47~450~5.4%+43%

Notes on Data:
  • CIPS: Sourced from official statistics via Wikipedia and PBOC reports. Values are for cross-border RMB payments; USD conversions use average annual exchange rates (e.g., ~7.2 RMB/USD in 2024). Growth reflects increasing adoption amid RMB internationalization and geopolitical shifts (e.g., post-Russia sanctions).
  • SWIFT: Estimated at ~$1.8 trillion daily average (as of mid-2024), yielding ~$450 trillion annually.

    This figure is consistent across recent analyses and represents high-value cross-border flows (primarily USD/EUR-denominated). Earlier estimates (e.g., $5 trillion daily in 2004) have scaled down per message due to more but smaller transactions; recent reports suggest slight increases to ~$21 trillion daily in 2025, but we use the conservative Fed figure for consistency.
  • Trends: CIPS volumes have more than tripled since 2021, driven by China's trade surplus and de-dollarization efforts, but it remains niche (RMB share in global payments ~4–6% via SWIFT). SWIFT handles ~90–95% of global cross-border messaging, with minimal disruption from alternatives like CIPS.
Key Insights
  • Scale Gap: SWIFT processes 18–60 times more value annually than CIPS, underscoring its entrenched role in global finance.
  • Growth Trajectory: CIPS's rapid expansion (average +37% YoY 2021–2024) positions it as a rising challenger, especially for Asia-Pacific trade, but it still relies on SWIFT for ~80% of its messages.
  • Implications for Trade: While CIPS reduces reliance on USD/SWIFT for China-related flows, full displacement is unlikely soon due to SWIFT's network effects and multi-currency universality.
For 2025 projections, CIPS could exceed $30 trillion if H1 growth (39% YoY) persists, but SWIFT is expected to grow modestly (3–5%) with global trade recovery.

~~~~

Q: " it still relies on SWIFT for ~80% of its messages. " -> Why? Is this a technical issue within CIPS?


The reliance of CIPS (China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System) on SWIFT for ~80% of its messages is not primarily a technical issue within CIPS but rather a reflection of practical, operational, and network-related factors in global finance. Below, I explain why this dependency exists and clarify that it stems from interoperability needs, not technical deficiencies in CIPS.Why CIPS Relies on SWIFT for ~80% of Messages
  1. SWIFT’s Global Network Dominance:
    • SWIFT is the de facto standard for secure financial messaging, connecting over 11,000 institutions across 200+ countries. Its standardized messaging protocols (e.g., MT and ISO 20022) are universally adopted, making it the backbone of cross-border payments.
    • CIPS, launched in 2015, connects ~1,500 institutions (as of 2024), mostly in Asia or with China trade ties. For transactions involving non-CIPS members (e.g., banks in Europe or the Americas), SWIFT messaging is often required to bridge the gap.
  2. Interoperability for Global Reach:
    • Many cross-border RMB transactions involve banks that are not direct CIPS participants. To communicate payment instructions to these banks, CIPS uses SWIFT’s messaging network, as it’s the most reliable way to reach non-CIPS institutions globally.
    • For example, a Chinese exporter sending RMB to a U.S. bank may use CIPS for settlement, but the U.S. bank, if not a CIPS member, receives instructions via SWIFT.
  3. Hybrid Messaging Model:
    • CIPS primarily handles RMB settlement and clearing but relies on SWIFT for messaging in cases where transactions cross multiple systems or jurisdictions. About 80% of CIPS transactions involve SWIFT messages to ensure compatibility with global banking systems, especially for correspondent banking relationships outside China’s direct network.
    • This is not a flaw in CIPS but a pragmatic choice to leverage SWIFT’s established infrastructure while CIPS expands its participant base.
  4. Standardization and Legacy Systems:
    • SWIFT’s messaging standards (e.g., MT103 for payments) are deeply embedded in global banking IT systems. Many banks, even those using CIPS, maintain SWIFT-based workflows for non-RMB or multi-currency transactions, reducing the need to overhaul legacy systems.
    • CIPS supports ISO 20022 (like SWIFT), but its smaller network means SWIFT is often the default for messaging when transactions involve non-CIPS banks or complex correspondent chains.
  5. Geopolitical and Adoption Dynamics:
    • While CIPS aims to reduce reliance on Western-dominated systems like SWIFT, its growth is constrained by the slow adoption of RMB globally (only ~4–6% of global payments in 2024). Many international banks prefer SWIFT for its neutrality and broader currency support.
    • Post-2022 sanctions on Russia increased CIPS usage among BRICS nations, but even these transactions often use SWIFT messaging for non-CIPS counterparties.
Is This a Technical Issue Within CIPS?No, this is not a technical limitation in CIPS’s infrastructure:
  • CIPS Capability: CIPS is a robust, modern system designed for real-time gross settlement (RTGS) of RMB transactions. It uses ISO 20022 and has direct connectivity for its participants, with no reported technical deficiencies in processing or messaging for its members.
  • Dependency Reason: The reliance on SWIFT is a strategic and operational choice to ensure global interoperability, not a sign of technical inadequacy. CIPS could theoretically handle all messaging internally if all counterparties were participants, but the global banking system’s reliance on SWIFT makes this impractical for now.
  • Analogy: Think of CIPS as a regional highway system (for RMB) that connects to SWIFT’s global highway for broader reach. The 80% figure reflects the need to use SWIFT’s roads when CIPS’s network doesn’t cover the destination.
Future Outlook
  • Reducing Dependency: As CIPS grows its participant base (targeting 2,000+ institutions by 2030) and RMB internationalization accelerates, reliance on SWIFT may decrease. Initiatives like mBridge (a blockchain-based alternative) could further reduce dependency.
  • Challenges: Full independence would require global banks to adopt CIPS en masse, which faces hurdles due to SWIFT’s entrenched position, regulatory differences, and geopolitical sensitivities.
In summary, CIPS’s ~80% reliance on SWIFT messaging is driven by the need for global interoperability, not a technical flaw. It reflects SWIFT’s unmatched network reach and the practical realities of integrating with the global financial system.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, Washington’s allies, clinging to the Empire’s decaying corpse, are being outmaneuvered. As they debate gender pronouns and export inflation, the rest of the world is securing energy, food, and trade, in their own currencies.
Click to expand...
America had better get its act together. But what I'm seeing is a huge part of the country that would rather rule over the ashes then work together to protect our security. And its becoming clear at how its all so easy to watch us defeat ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…