Davos — A new phase of power struggle questions the meaning of economic structure

The 2026 Davos World Economic Forum symbolizes more than just an annual event; it signifies the ongoing fundamental restructuring of the global economy. Donald Trump’s return after six years, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong’s overt opposition to the crypto legislation, and the largest delegation from the United States—all these events suggest that the boundaries between politics, policy, and technology are experiencing intense shifts. The true significance of this year’s forum lies not merely in exchanging new ideas but in the manifestation of a power struggle over how to design the very systems that underpin the economy.

When the “Meaning” of Economic Rules Changes

Historically, the Davos Forum has been a platform for discussions on “ideals and strategies.” But this year is different. With approximately 3,000 participants from around 130 countries, a record high in the ratio of policymakers to corporate leaders is particularly noteworthy. What does this change imply? It indicates a fundamental shift in the forum’s focus from “future visions” to “implementable structures.”

The AI sector exemplifies this shift most vividly. In discussions about “AI House” and “AI Agent House,” artificial intelligence is no longer regarded as an “innovative technology” but is positioned as an “infrastructure” on par with energy and supply chains. This reclassification means that access to computing power now holds strategic value comparable to control over oil resources of the past.

Corporate executives are also shifting their focus from “development speed” to “system durability.” The core question is “What systems will still function in ten years?” This question itself is prompting a fundamental reevaluation of the meaning of economic structures.

The Significance of Digital Assets Elevating to Infrastructure

This systemic thinking deeply permeates the digital finance sector. The reality that daily settlement amounts of stablecoins reach tens of billions of dollars and are widely used in international remittances and fund management. The quiet penetration of tokenization into capital markets, expanding even to real-world assets (RWA). These developments suggest that cryptocurrencies have transitioned from experimental stages to becoming formal “financial infrastructure.”

The implications of this transition are highly political. The signing of the “Web3 Davos Declaration” by the Web3 Hub at Davos 2026, which explicitly states four core principles—responsible innovation, sustainable development, accountability, and trust—is no coincidence. Making crypto assets into infrastructure means that their design and governance directly impact national competitiveness.

Rethinking Political Weight with Trump’s Attendance

Trump’s presence at Davos adds direct political weight to this transformative process. His economic philosophy has consistently centered on “sovereignty, influence, and competitiveness,” and cryptocurrencies are positioned at the intersection of these three elements. Digital assets have the potential to enable rapid payments, new capital formation models, and increased efficiency, aligning well with growth-promoting policy agendas. At the same time, they raise serious concerns regarding sanctions enforcement, financial regulation, and the long-term status of the US dollar.

Davos is not a legislative body, but it is the premier platform for communicating policy priorities to the international community. The official return of the US delegation clearly demonstrates this. The US government and major corporate groups are leveraging Davos not as a “neutral backdrop” but as a strategic stage to shape narratives around technology, capital, and influence.

The Industry Maturity Signaled by Armstrong’s Opposition

In this context, Brian Armstrong’s opposition to the CLARITY Act is not merely a simple “regulation opposition.” It reflects that the crypto industry has entered a mature phase, evolving from a binary “permit or ban” debate to a fundamental question of “what design will determine the industry’s core infrastructure.”

Armstrong’s concerns can be summarized into three core points. First, the bill could “deliberately favor winners and losers,” potentially privileging existing large corporations and centralized intermediaries while excluding innovative startups and open networks. Second, it could increase compliance burdens without providing clarity, worsening legal uncertainties. Third, it risks undermining the fundamental advantages of decentralized architectures; promoting highly centralized structures could lead to a loss of global interoperability and cause innovation resources to flow out of the country.

Essentially, Armstrong advocates for “scientific and rigorous design.” If cryptocurrencies are truly to become infrastructure, their regulation frameworks must meet the same high standards of design. Poorly designed regulations could entrench vulnerabilities, drive innovation resources abroad, and pose long-term market concentration risks.

Power Struggles Over Control of the Economic Infrastructure

Trump’s visit to Davos and Armstrong’s opposition to the bill, while seemingly contrasting, highlight the same fundamental issue: “Who will control the design and governance of the next economic infrastructure?”

The debate is no longer about “hype versus experimentation” but about “who will hold the governance rights over the fundamental systems that enable the functioning of the modern economy.” Political leaders see this as a strategic asset for national competitiveness, while industry leaders are defending the future vision of their sector.

Davos has become the front line of this power struggle. Trump’s destination is not just an international conference but a battleground where the new meaning of economic infrastructure is being shaped. The return of the US delegation, the elevation of crypto-related discussions, and industry leaders like Armstrong openly voicing dissent all symbolize that the reorganization of power structures in the digital age has entered an unavoidable stage. Over the coming years, how this restructuring unfolds will fundamentally determine the future of the global economy.