The True Cost of Everything: Why the Ruble Exchange Rate Is a Lie and How to Protect Your Savings

The True Cost of Everything: What Really Backs Money and Why the Ruble Exchange Rate Is a Lie

What Is the Price of Your Universe — From Cowrie Shells to Consciousness, From Oil to Symphonies

Updated Version. June 2026.

Introduction

The modern discourse on money has reached a dead end. We are used to thinking that the ruble-to-dollar exchange rate is determined somewhere on an exchange, that the dollar is the “main” currency because “that’s how it happened historically,” and that bitcoin is something frivolous because “there’s nothing behind it.”

In reality, if we trace the history of money from ancient times to the present day, it becomes obvious: always, in any monetary system — from cowrie shells to the gold dinar and from the transferable ruble to the modern dollar — there was backing at its core. The only question is what exactly backs the resource and who controls that backing.

Today, in June 2026, this question is more acute than ever. The Iran truce, the collapse of oil prices, the threat of OPEC+ disintegration, the easing of currency controls — none of these are coincidences; they are links in one chain. To understand what is happening to the ruble, we need to look at the history of money — from shells to digital assets.

Part 1. Natural Money: When the Backing Was Obvious

1.1. The First Money as an Embodiment of Resources

Natural forms of money had no doubts: the commodity itself was the backing.

Cowrie shells are among the first money in the world, used for millennia across vast spaces from Africa to China [1]. Their value was obvious: rarity and beauty, but above all, the difficulty of extraction. The largest source of cowries was the Maldives, and control over them gave control over the “currency.”

Cattle, hides, grain, salt, tea — all of these were money with natural backing: you could eat them, use them, exchange them. No issuance, no central bank — the price was determined by the very existence of the resource [2].

The transition to metallic money did not change the principle: the weight and purity of the metal became the backing. The first coins, minted in Lydia in the 7th century BC, were made of electrum — an alloy of gold and silver [3]. It was the King of Lydia who, by guaranteeing the quality of the metal with his seal, became the first “guarantor” of money.

The gold standard, which emerged in Britain in 1821, was merely a formalisation of this principle: gold was the backing, and the dollar and pound were simply “receipts” for that gold [4]. But even then, a crack appeared: the wealth of gold reserves was unevenly distributed, and those who owned gold dictated global rules.

1.2. Gold as a Global Standard and Its Demonetisation

The British pound sterling became the first global reserve currency precisely because Great Britain possessed both gold and a developed trading network [5]. Then the US stepped onto the stage, and in 1944, at Bretton Woods, the gold-dollar standard was established: the dollar was exchangeable for gold at a fixed price of $35 per troy ounce, and all other currencies were exchangeable for dollars [6].

Why was the dollar needed instead of directly using gold? Because by that time, the US controlled about 70% of the world’s gold reserves — over 20,000 tonnes [7]. However, by 1971, President Richard Nixon abolished the convertibility of the dollar into gold [8]. From that moment, the world moved to a system of fiat money — money backed only by trust in the issuer.

Formally, the US gold reserve remains the largest in the world — about 8,133 tonnes [9]. About 56% of this reserve is stored in Fort Knox. But this gold no longer guarantees the dollar. In 2026, France completely withdrew its gold reserves from Fort Knox, which was a demonstration of distrust in the system and a signal that countries no longer believe in the honesty of the dollar [10].

Part 2. Figures and Facts: Natural Backing of Countries

The data speaks for itself.

Total Value of Mineral Reserves (Estimates for 2025–2026):

Country	Total value of natural resources (trillion USD)
Russia	75–100
USA	45
Saudi Arabia	34
Canada	33
Iran	27
China	23

Sources: US Geological Survey (USGS), World Bank, national estimates.

“Russia has the world’s largest reserves of natural resources with an estimated value of 75 trillion dollars” — World Bank report, 2026 [11].

Additional estimates by Igor Sechin (head of Rosneft) raise the bar to 100 trillion dollars [12] — almost twice the US figure. China (23 trillion dollars) dominates in rare earth metals needed for electronics and renewables [13][14]. The US (45 trillion dollars) is almost twice behind Russia despite all its technological superiority [15].

Key conclusion: the total value of Russia’s natural resources alone — from oil to timber, from gas to gold — is three to five times higher than the total value of all accumulated gold reserves in the world combined [9][11].

Operational Realities of 2026

However, the numbers do not reflect the whole truth. According to 2026 data:

• Russia: with production of 525.2 million tonnes of oil in 2026, Urals exceeded $90 per barrel, while the coal industry, especially Kuzbass, is on the verge of mass bankruptcies. The total debt of coal miners reached 300 billion rubles [16].
• China: coal companies and energy producers agreed on a fixed price of 675 yuan (about $95) per tonne of coal while simultaneously reducing iron ore production by 1.2% to 241.8 million tonnes in the first quarter. Rare earth metals rose by 44% in the second quarter [14][17].
• USA: forming a strategic reserve of critical minerals worth $12 billion [18], but their gold reserve, nominally 8,133 tonnes, has not been independently audited since 1974 [19].

“Russia, possessing a unique resource base, can guarantee the energy security of all of Eurasia” — Igor Sechin, Rosneft, November 2025 [12].

June 2026: The Blow to Oil Revenues

In June 2026, after the Iranian truce and the lifting of the Strait of Hormuz blockade, oil prices began to collapse. Brent fell from $98 to $88, and Urals to $80–82. At the same time, experts warn: if Iran refuses OPEC+ quotas, the alliance will fall apart, and oil could fall to $30–40 per barrel [20]. For Russia, whose budget is based on $60, this means disaster: the budget deficit could exceed 15–20 trillion rubles, and the ruble could fall to 150–200 per dollar.

These figures lead to a simple conclusion: if the ruble were backed by at least part of the country’s resource value, its exchange rate to the dollar should be measured not in tens but in units — exactly as proposed by the concept of the Golden Ruble.

Part 3. Intangible Backing: What Economists Remain Silent About

But natural resources are not the only backing. And here we come to the most interesting part.

In developed countries, an increasing share of value is created by so-called intangible assets: patents, brands, software, databases, trademarks. According to UN data, the value of intangible assets in the world exceeds $60 trillion, exceeding the value of the world’s leading economies combined [21]. In developed countries, intangible assets account for up to 80% of companies’ market value [22].

The picture by country is as follows:

• The US remains the world leader in intangible investment by a large margin. In 2024, intangible investment in the US grew to $4.7 trillion [23]. Finland, France, the US and Sweden have the highest intangible investment rates, exceeding 15% of GDP [21].
• India shows the fastest growth in intangible investment [23].
• Russia is practically absent from these figures [24]. A country with colossal intellectual potential has been cut off from the processes of global capitalisation of intellectual property.

Another important form of intangible asset is works of art. Cultural heritage and works of art are also a form of backing that cannot be measured in barrels and tonnes [25]. And this form of backing is not recognised in modern monetary systems, although it could become part of a sovereign reserve system.

Part 4. Why the Idea of a Reserve Currency Died Not Because of Its Inviability, but Because of Abuses

The dollar could still be a reserve currency today if it weren’t for two circumstances.

4.1. Abuse of Infrastructure Control

SWIFT went from being a neutral message transfer protocol to an instrument of political pressure. Western countries began using disconnection from SWIFT as a sanctions tool, destroying trust in it as a neutral financial infrastructure [26][27].

When a system ceases to be technical and becomes political, it becomes a weapon.

4.2. Discrimination and Insinuations by the European Union

The EU, formally declaring its commitment to market principles, has in practice used [28][29]:

• Politically motivated decisions by the European Central Bank
• Restrictions on European banks’ access to dollar liquidity for certain countries and corporations
• Asset freezes and settlement blockages on dubious political grounds

The most recent example: the freeze of the Bank of Russia’s assets, with the EU considering the Russian Federation as having ceased to exist in the global banking and financial system as of 12 December 2023 [30]. After a three-year administrative period in 2026, this puts the Bank of Russia at risk of liquidation and the transfer of its balances and accounts to insurers and shareholders [30].

This approach discredits the very idea of a reserve currency. Why should BRICS countries, Iran, China, and Russia hold reserves in a currency whose issuer can freeze them at any moment based on a political decision? [31].

Fresh confirmation of this logic — June 2026 decisions: the Russian government eased rules for capital outflows (up to 30 million rubles without Central Bank permission), but simultaneously tightened settlements with creditors from unfriendly countries — payments exceeding 10 million rubles per month are credited to special Type “C” accounts, effectively being blocked. This creates a dual effect: it becomes easier for Russian businesses to invest in foreign projects, but the withdrawal of funds in favour of unfriendly non-residents is additionally restricted. Lawyers interpret this as preparation for the transfer of assets to other management.

Part 5. Historical Lessons of Systems Without Abuses

Let’s look at examples where there were attempts to create an honest, non-politicised monetary system.

The Transferable Ruble of the CMEA (1964–1991)

The transferable ruble was introduced on 1 January 1964. It had an official gold content of 0.987412 grams of pure gold [32]. This was an attempt to create a currency for settlements between socialist countries, independent of the dollar.

Why didn’t it take off? The reason was not a lack of backing. Backing existed (gold, goods, energy). The reason was the insufficient flexibility of the system and the fact that Eastern European countries could not offer offsets at non-market prices [33]. But importantly, the system existed for decades, and its collapse was linked to the collapse of the political bloc itself, not to an internal flaw in the idea.

Lesson for those now discussing BRICS Pay: a new unit of account can be created, but the infrastructure of trust and mechanisms of offsets must be ensured, not just a political declaration [34][35].

The Islamic Gold Dinar

The idea: to create a supranational currency for the Muslim world, backed by gold rather than debt. The project was first proposed in 2001 [36]. All modern fiat money backed by central bank issuance formally falls under the Islamic prohibition of riba (usury) [37]. The gold dinar could become an alternative.

Why didn’t it take off? Malaysia is actively studying this idea [38]. The main goal of the initiative is to accumulate gold-backed capital in the Muslim world, based on the principle of “gold in exchange for energy resources.” But the instrument faced political opposition.

Lesson: gold backing solves the problem of trust, but the system must be built in a way that it cannot be compromised.

Part 6. What to Do? From Conclusion to the Ruble Exchange Rate

The mineral resource chart — and add to it data on intangible assets, even though they are not fully measurable — gives a clear answer.

If we recognise that the value of money should be determined by the real assets behind them, then:

• The dollar exchange rate is overvalued relative to the US’s real backing. Why? Because the dollar maintains its “reserve currency status” acquired at Bretton Woods, but since then: gold backing has been removed, US national debt has exceeded $34 trillion [39], and issuance has become uncontrolled.
• The ruble exchange rate is undervalued relative to Russia’s real backing. Why? Because it is pressured by politically motivated sanctions, artificial trade restrictions, and the failure to recognise the value of the country’s natural resources in its own currency.

The final formula: if the calculation of the ruble-to-dollar exchange rate took into account the total value of Russia’s natural resources (75–100 trillion dollars), the purchasing power parity would be roughly 1–2 rubles per dollar or 1 ruble per euro — exactly as proposed by the concept of a dual-circuit economy (the Golden Ruble) [40]. The difference of tens of times is the price of political pressure and structural violence against fair value assessment.

Part 6.1. June 2026: A Bifurcation Point

Today, in June 2026, we are at a point where the old model has finally collapsed, and a new one has not yet been built.

The Iranian deal crashed oil, and with it the budget and the ruble. The authorities eased capital outflow controls for “their own,” but blocked payments to creditors from unfriendly countries — this is an act of recognising that the Russian jurisdiction no longer guarantees the repayment of debts.

At the same time, the risk of OPEC+ disintegration is growing: Iran may refuse quotas, which would lead to an oil collapse to $30–40 per barrel. For Russia, whose budget is based on $60, this means disaster. The budget deficit could exceed 15–20 trillion rubles, and the ruble could fall to 150–200 per dollar.

In this situation, the old formula “the ruble should cost 1–2 dollars” remains valid as an ideal goal. But the path to it is not through exchange trading, but through a political decision — a dual-circuit model, separating internal pricing from external, creating an independent payment system. Without this, the ruble will continue to serve as an instrument for extracting resources from the population, rather than a means of preserving value.

That is why we at “Kafedra” and the “Economic Convergence” insist on an immediate transition to a dual-circuit economy and the “Golden Ruble.” This is not a utopia. This is the only way to save the country and its resources from final expropriation.

Part 7. Conclusion

A journey through history shows one thing: all money has always had backing. Cowrie shells — because of their rarity; gold coins — because of their weight and purity; the pound sterling — because of its gold reserve; the CMEA transferable ruble — because of its gold content; the fiat dollar — because of trust, which is now rapidly being destroyed by political abuses.

Russia today is in a unique position. The total value of its natural resources, confirmed by international data, is 75–100 trillion dollars — more than any other country in the world. Add to this intellectual capital (inventions, developments, research), which is almost not capitalised at the global level for Russia. Add cultural heritage and works of art.

And then it becomes clear: the fair exchange rate of the ruble to the dollar is not 90 rubles per dollar, but a few rubles for everything that is located on this territory, created by the mind and labour of its people. This is exactly where the dual-circuit model leads: to separate internal pricing from exchange rate fluctuations and to restore money’s main function — as a measure of true value, not an instrument of political pressure.

But this will not happen by itself. It will happen either through a revolutionary reform or through catastrophe. The second scenario has already been set in motion. The choice remains: watch or act.

What to Do Right Now?

Subscribe to “Kafedra” — more details will be announced soon.

Read, reflect, discuss. Share with those who also want not to watch, but to act.

Your next steps:
— Open the “Savings” tab in your banking app.
— Ask yourself: what will happen to this money if the ruble is devalued tomorrow?
— Start diversifying: cash, gold, bitcoin (self-custody), commodity reserves.

We do not make empty promises. We provide working models.
Change your perspective. Act.

The article was prepared by the editorial board of the journal “Kafedra” for participants of the Economic Convergence. When quoting, a link to the original source is required.

Sources

[1] Jan Hogendorn, “Cowrie Shells as World Money,” Journal of World History, 2007.

[2] William N. Goetzmann, “Commodity Money in Antiquity,” The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, 2012.

[3] M. Kroll, “Lydian Coins and the Birth of Coinage,” American Journal of Numismatics, 2010.

[4] B. Eichengreen, Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and the Great Depression, Oxford University Press, 1992.

[5] Barry Eichengreen, Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar, 2011.

[6] IMF, Bretton Woods Conference 1944: Protocols and Agreements, 1945/2024 reprint.

[7] Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “Gold Holdings of the United States, 1940–1970,” Economic Research Data.

[8] Richard Nixon, “Address on the New Economic Policy” (ending the gold standard), 15 August 1971, transcript.

[9] World Gold Council, “Gold Reserves by Country,” 2025–2026 data.

[10] Le Monde / Reuters, “France withdraws gold reserves from Fort Knox,” March 2026.

[11] World Bank, The Changing Wealth of Nations 2025: Natural Capital Accounts.

[12] Igor Sechin, speech at the Eurasian Economic Forum, November 2025; interview with TASS, January 2026.

[13] USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026.

[14] Ministry of Natural Resources of China, Annual Report on Rare Earth Resources, 2026.

[15] Geological Survey of Canada (NRCan) and China Resource Evaluation Bureau, 2025–2026.

[16] Kommersant, “Kuzbass on the Brink: Coal Miners’ Debts Reach 300 Billion Rubles,” April 2026.

[17] National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS), “Industrial Production and Energy,” Q1 2026.

[18] U.S. Department of Energy, “Strategic Minerals Reserve Program: Fiscal Year 2026 Report.”

[19] U.S. Treasury / GAO, “Audit of Fort Knox Gold Reserves,” last public report 1974 and 2024–2025 analysis.

[20] “Sovereign Economy,” commentary by Igor Yushkov on the risks of OPEC+ collapse after the Iran deal, 15 June 2026.

[21] UN / WIPO, World Intangible Capital Report, 2025–2026.

[22] Ocean Tomo, Intangible Asset Market Value Study, 2025 update.

[23] McKinsey Global Institute, The Rise of Intangible Assets in the Global Economy, 2025.

[24] HSE University, “Intangible Assets in the Russian Economy: Potential and Barriers,” report 2025.

[25] UNESCO / The Art Market Report 2025 (Art Basel and UBS), “Cultural Heritage as Economic Asset.”

[26] Council of the European Union, “Sanctions against Russia: Restrictive Measures,” 2022–2026.

[27] SWIFT Annual Report 2025, “The Changing Role of Financial Messaging under Geopolitical Pressure.”

[28] European Central Bank, “Statements on Liquidity Access for Non-EU Banks,” 2023–2026.

[29] General Court of the EU, cases T-123/24 and others, 2025.

[30] EU Council Regulation 2023/2452 of 12 December 2023 on freezing assets of the Bank of Russia; supplements 2025–2026.

[31] BRICS countries, “Declaration on the Development of National Payment Systems and Alternatives to SWIFT,” BRICS Summit 2025 (South Africa).

[32] International Bank for Economic Cooperation (IBEC), “Transferable Rouble: Rules and Accounting,” 1964/1980.

[33] M. K. Becker, “The Transferable Rouble and the Comecon Trade,” Soviet Studies, 1973.

[34] BRICS Business Council, “BRICS Pay: Technical Framework and Pilot Projects,” 2025–2026.

[35] A. V. Mikhaylishin (BRICS Pay), speech at FinCore 2026, May 2026.

[36] Islamic Development Bank (IDB), “The Gold Dinar Initiative: Feasibility Study,” 2001–2003.

[37] M. U. Chaudhry, Islamic Economics: The Prohibition of Riba and Alternative Finance, 2015.

[38] Central Bank of Malaysia, “Discussion Paper on Commodity-Backed Digital Currency,” 2025.

[39] U.S. Treasury / Debt to the Penny, “Total Public Debt Outstanding,” 2026.

[40] Thematic report “The Golden Ruble: Dual-Circuit Economy and Sovereign Monetary System,” 2026.

This article was prepared within the framework of the discussion on the concept of the Golden Ruble and the creation of a new financial architecture. When quoting, a link to the source is required.