What Davos 2026 Can Tell Us About the World That Is Coming

The World Economic Forum (WEF) summit at Davos has always been a meeting of technocrats. A place where financial and industrial elites, slowly replaced by technological ones, could mix freely with political representatives to promote their interests. This year’s summit offers a window into the world that is coming.

You might remember the theme for the 2021 edition, which never took place because of COVID; it was titled “The Great Reset.” Klaus Schwab, founder and former chairman of the organization, summarized the core proposal in three initiatives: promoting a “stakeholder economy,” governing through environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics, and “harnessing the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

When taken together, these initiatives pushed for a corporate-like reorganization of the political field, merging it with economic management. No political parties—only the system was to remain, with a well-oiled managerial class. This was a step closer to achieving what the 2016 Davos vision was for 2030, summarized in the infamous slogan, “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”

Notwithstanding the change in rhetoric that discards any kind of environmental concern or agenda, it can be argued that the program continues ahead without significant change. A key indication is this year’s main subject of discussion, artificial intelligence, and Donald Trump’s signing of the charter of the Board of Peace.

That Trump has chosen Davos as the stage on which to bring to life his new international organization should not be read lightly. The Board of Peace is not a rival to other international organizations, such as the United Nations, but a new blueprint of international sovereignty. Although presented as a multilateral organization, the Board of Peace rests firmly in the executive power of its lifetime chairman, Donald Trump.

Gaza—the humanitarian crisis invoked to justify the initiative—barely features in the organization’s design. Instead, it is handled through parallel mechanisms that reduce Palestinian governance to technical administration under external oversight. In this light, Gaza was never the objective, but the pretext.

Built on the legal footing of a UN Security Council resolution, the Board of Peace will enjoy international legitimacy as a sovereign organization not accountable to any particular state. The structure is designed as a potential financial vehicle shielded by diplomatic immunity and extraterritorial privileges, a prerogative reserved until now for a few financial entities, such as the Bank for International Settlements.

With the power to dissolve the organization at will and to appoint his successor, Trump has created a new kind of personal international entity that could rival nation-states and multilateral organizations. Its charter makes it similar to multinational corporations but with diplomatic status and sovereignty. It’s a 21st-century version of the Western colonial trading companies.

The Board of Peace’s first project will be Gaza. We have already seen what Trump envisions: “The Riviera of the Middle East.” But it is not unreasonable to think that there will be others. Could Trump’s Board of Peace purchase a territory and put it under its jurisdiction—for example, Greenland? He has already said that the U.S. should purchase it and that he already has a “framework” for negotiations.

Greenland might not be related at all to the Board of Peace, whose success and lasting impact are far from guaranteed. In fact, it could very well be stillborn. However, what it points to is that we are entering a new age in politics. Perhaps Polybius was right and we are seeing the transition from a democracy/ochlocracy to a monarchy, and Trump sits in between.

However, if that is the case, then the coming kingdom—or kingdoms—will be digitally controlled ones with a CEO at their head. What would governance look like? For that, we might turn to this year’s Davos main unstated theme: artificial intelligence.

The explosion of investment in generative artificial intelligence, especially in the U.S. but with replicas around the world, is not explainable by market logic. There is no viable use case to justify it. And perhaps that is actually the point.

After the financial bubble has exploded—which undoubtedly it will—what will remain? Thousands of power-hungry data centers, which, coupled with highly developed algorithms, make a perfect combination for large-scale, society-wide mass surveillance, control, and indoctrination. At that point, either the state or a state-sanctioned company—or a state company—will step in and take charge of the infrastructure.

Although perhaps there won’t be a difference between the public and private sectors. This merger is already happening. Palantir Technologies is already so involved with the U.S. defense establishment that it is difficult to say where one ends and the other begins. But this is also true, to a different extent, with other large technology companies in the U.S., both with regard to hardware and software.

This phenomenon is not U.S.-centric only. In China, it is the model. The government has firm control of industry, technological development, and finance. That does not mean that there are no private enterprises, but the largest player—with the most leverage and control, able to sanction others or change the rules—is the state.

This model, which is managerial and not a political one—for the state is the party and the party the state—has been optimized through technology. The rise of China over the last thirty years goes hand in hand with the rise of digital technologies. Centralization might be detrimental when decisions have to be made by human committees.

However, when those same processes can be automated not only to be faster, but to take into account vast amounts of information, then they might become more efficient. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why China has overtaken the U.S., and how the latter aims to leap ahead through algorithmic governance.

From the other side of the ocean, U.S. technologists have learned the lesson but are applying it differently. The state is not to take over the private sector, but the private sector over the state. In order for that to be possible, two things are necessary: control over the population and control over the currency.

The first is well underway through control of mass media, social media, and education. But that, in itself, is not new. What is new is the capacity that generative AI, connected to our information stream, has not only to steer our conscious attention and create desire, but to generate the very field of conscious possibilities. A recent video shared by Yves on this platform illustrated how this is shaping young learners’ brains to be, very bluntly, almost brainless.

The second—control over the currency—could be argued to be, in a Heideggerian fashion, the ultimate goal of technological development. It is modern finance that has allowed the development of modern technology, which in turn will transform and overtake finance. Another use for vast data-center resources and algorithmic development could be large-scale implementations of central digital currencies.

Central digital currencies are not an iteration of our current form of fiat currency. The transition from one to the other would be equally significant—though perhaps far more far-reaching in its consequences—than the end of the gold standard.

Current fiat currency has an intrinsic nominal value. This value is not directly manipulable after the currency has been issued. There are other forms—mainly inflation through credit creation and further currency issuance—to manipulate its value, but each nominal unit retains its value. Central bank digital currencies, however, are not like that. Not only can their value be directly manipulated—or even canceled—they can also be programmed to function only under particular circumstances.

The implementation of central digital currencies, which are a control mechanism, requires the physical extension of hardware and software—which is well underway—as well as concrete territories of applicability. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we are seeing a return to the “zone of influence” concept.

If this is to happen—which I think is a question of time—there will be fundamental changes in how our societies work. In a financialized society, in which an individual needs money to eat, drink, sleep, and perhaps soon to even breathe, a change in the nature of money is not a mere secondary consequence but a foundational aspect of how the system works.

This type of change, which is akin to a revolution, will displace some elites and will elevate others. Which is why we are seeing some politicians in Davos coming to terms with an inescapable reality: the system they upheld was a fraudulent design to keep some elites in power.

It was none other than Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, who said those words. He, who previously was the governor of the Bank of England, is realizing his class is being pushed aside. The financiers will be replaced by the technologists.

That is the war being fought right now in the United States. Matt Stoller, in his latest newsletter, brilliantly summarized the conflict and offered this as an update of the current status:

I want to highlight an important moment on Capitol Hill last week that could dictate the future of finance in America. On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee abruptly canceled its meeting, known as a mark-up, to write little-noticed legislation to deregulate the financial system. And the reason is that two of the more powerful forces in D.C.—the banking lobby and the new MAGA-powered crypto world—came into conflict. The result, so far, is a stalemate.

Trump will pass, and his “Board of Peace” might go with him, but the changes he is heralding—and the technology to underwrite them—will remain. Not because they are a break from the system, but because they are its logical development.

That is what Martin Heidegger warned of when he said that the essence of technology is not to be found in it as a tool, but as “enframing.” That is, a particular set of assumptions about what the world is and how it functions, which unleashes consequential circumstances