23 min read

What is the millionaire maker of the 2020's?

What is the millionaire maker of the 2020's?

There is overlap here, and I'm also generalizing, but I think it's fair to say that millionaires — and sometimes billionaires — were made in:

  • The 2000's because of web 2.0 (e.g. social media, blogging)
  • The 2010's because of crypto and blockchain technology

You could have a shitty blog, but if you started it in 2004 and posted regularly, then it wouldn't have been very hard to hit seven figures. Same goes for anyone who figured out how to run profitable ads on, say, Facebook, when they were first introduced.

And we all know that any hodlers who got into crypto in the 2010's became very, very rich.

Similar opportunities exist right now. Finding them is not so easy, however.

Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.
And foresight is... uh... really fuckin' hard.

But we need foresight if we're going to prosper exponentially higher than average, ideally without being geniuses or wealthy people to start. Let's see what we can come up based on the trends I've recognized as of today, on this fine June afternoon, 2021.

I won't list every little thing I've identified, but here are some big ones:

Web 3.0 — birth of a decentralized world

It started with Bitcoin, but it will spread to everything, and the changes will be monumental.

Take Bitcoin, for example. It — or a decentralized currency like it — will replace the US dollar as the global reserve currency. This is a foregone conclusion. Say you're a startup company with $300,000 in cash in your bank account. You will use this money over the next 24 months to pay for business expenses.

Where do you put it?

If you leave it in a bank account, yeah, maybe it'll make around 1% annual interest. The Fed tries to make sure that the value of a US dollar decreases by 2% every year. If they are successful, that money will be worth $6,000 less by the end of that 24 months. Guess you should spend it sooner than later.

This is a pretty optimistic calculation, by the way, considering that the most recent government estimates put inflation at 5% annually. So that's $29,250 of lost purchasing power in our example above. And that's only if the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is correct. It's probably inaccurate.

Having $300k in the bank is starting to sound pretty stressful, yeah?

So what do you do with it?

  • Stocks? What if there is a crash?
  • Bonds? Historically safer, but good luck getting over 4% returns nowadays.
  • Gold? Maybe.
  • A stablecoin deposit on a crypto exchange with a high interest rate? Arguably even better.

But wouldn't it be nice if you could just hold that cash in a currency that will retain its value? You're not even trying to make money. You're just trying to hold onto the money you already have so you can spend it.

Where can we find a currency that...

  • Has a fixed, unchangeable supply
  • Can be easily exchanged for other currencies
  • Can be transferred with ease, in minutes


I'm describing Bitcoin, of course.

The issue here is that decentralized markets need to mature.

In the last year, people have been trading Bitcoin as an investment. So it has been correlating with the stock market. In other words, it hasn't become a reserve currency yet. You don't want to put your $300k into Bitcoin if you'll need to spend it regularly over the next 24 months because the price movement is too volatile.

Once it claims its rightful place as a reserve currency, however? Well, then it seems like a much better place to hold your cash. Not even as an investment. Just as a please-stop-destroying-my-wealth account.

Food for thought: There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoins. It is estimated that about 20% of this is already lost, never to be recovered. Conversely, as of today, there are over 51 million millionaires in the world. Therefore, not even half of them can own even 1 full Bitcoin. How many do you own?

The point of this digression is not that Bitcoin is great. The point is that decentralization is great. Because...

Centralized stuff: Can be fucked with.
Decentralized stuff: Cannot be fucked with.

Not surprisingly, people don't like it when you fuck with their shit. You put savings for a down payment on a house in your bank account, and the government makes it worth less money. It's annoying. Wouldn't it be better to have a store of value they couldn't fuck with?

Decentralization results in a cascading series of realizations. First, you realize that you could stop having X fucked with. Next, you realize that there are a lot of things you do just because people fuck with your stuff. And you shouldn't have to.

For the first of these, we can predict, for example, decentralized social media. I don't have a twitter account. Even if I did, I doubt I would have been following Donald Trump in January 2021. But I find it pretty annoying to be told by twitter that I'm not allowed to follow him because they banned his account.

Name one time in history (at least 50 years prior, so we have some perspective) when the group of people who were censoring speech were the good guys.

Can you do it? I certainly can't. Because you can't justify censoring something without being undoubtedly, irrefutably correct. And if you are indeed undoubtedly, irrefutably correct, it doesn't make sense that you have to forcibly silence people who disagree with you.

Things get complicated very quickly. There were media campaigns, for example, fueling the Rwandan genocide. Should they have been censored? By whom? In what way? Who can be trusted to censor the right things at the right times, perfectly and without fail?

Big tech won't get it right. Unless it is undoubtedly, irrefutably correct to suspend accounts for saying men cannot get pregnant (which twitter did) or remove videos of academic panel discussions among professors from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford (which YouTube did).

It reminds me of how some of my friends growing up weren't allowed to watch The Simpsons. Their parents decided the content was inappropriate for their fragile young minds. My 10-year-old self thought they were autocratic bitches, but at least filtering your child's media is a bit more justifiable than filtering the media of your entire species. Because surely you know better than, err, your entire species...?

Not sure you'll find humans capable of that. Maybe if the singularity works out in our favor, the computers can do it for us... But wait. Then we'd be censored by actual computers? Yeah, never mind.

It's easy to demonize executives of social media platforms, but the fact is that they have been and will continue to be pressured to censor content, whether they want to or not. So you'll hear Mark Zuckerberg say this to Congress:

“It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.”

And then say this in an interview:

“I don’t think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth.”

Well, which is it?

And why did we end up in 2020 with a company that bans any mention of the very possibility that is COVID-19 was man-made as hate speech... and then reversing the ban when the claims seem to have some validity a year later.

A: Our job is to censor hate speech.

B: Right. Uh... is questioning unverifiable scientific claims hate speech?

A: (checks notes) Uh... yes...?

Long story short, it's a mess.

But what if our social media platforms:

  • Could not be censored
  • Could not monitor and sell our private data
  • Could not be influenced by government regulations
  • Did not force radicalizing algorithms onto users


Shit would not get fucked with.

Yeah, people would have to figure out for themselves what to consume, filter, and believe. But surely it's better that way.

Some people disagree, but I believe social media will become decentralized within this next decade. Attempts are already being made, but it remains to see which will succeed.

Next, we have things you do because people fuck with your shit.

A title company is a good example of this. "The role of a title company is to verify that the title to the real estate is legitimately given to the home buyer. Essentially, they make sure that a seller has the rights to sell the property to a buyer."

It is laughable that computers aren't already doing this. The technology for it exists. It just needs to be decentralized so that — you guessed it — people can't fuck with it act fraudulently.

I went to a specialist doctor the other day, and I had to fill out a 4-page questionnaire giving them all kinds of medical history. This, too, is ridiculous. If there were a decentralized database of my medical records, they could just submit a request listing the things that, if they exist, they need to be aware of in order to perform their intended medical procedures, and I could release this info, and only this info.

Your foot doctor might need to know that you have undergone anesthesia without ill effects before. They don't need to know that you had hernia surgery as a baby or that you have a titanium plate in your jaw. It is none of their business.

Once again, we have the technology for this. Why hasn't someone built it yet?

Part of the reason is that organizing people and systems so that new technology gets adopted is a lot of work. And this is made more complicated by...

A centralized resistance

We talked about how a decentralized cryptocurrency is guaranteed to replace the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

What do you think the US government is going to do to stop this?

  • Nothing.
  • Every single thing they can.

Unfortunately, the latter. Once you give an entity power, they don't give it back.

I'm not sure what will happen with crypto in particular. What we've seen so far is attempts to tax it, to deny that it's a currency, and to threaten that they'll confiscate it when they decide you owe them money.

What will they do when the value of the US dollar plummets as a result? Somewhere between 40% and 70% of US dollars is estimated to be held overseas. But if the US dollar isn't the reserve currency, it will make less sense for foreign entities to hold it. In the first week of June, El Salvador announced plans to make Bitcoin legal tender. The official currency of El Salvador is the US dollar. Presumably this means they'll need less of it in the future.

Meanwhile, the Fed is increasing the supply of dollars at astounding rates. In 2020 alone, about 1/5 of all dollars in the world were created out of thin air.

The thing is, the US government cannot control Bitcoin. Sure, they have a monopoly on violence, and they arguably can control US citizens' access to cryptocurrencies. But that's like refusing to let your kid play on the soccer team because his teammates laughed at you for falling on your ass. Your kid is the biggest loser, not the rest of the team (no matter how skilled your little tyke might be) and you just end up looking like a dumb bitch.

All centralized powers resist decentralization.

It's similar to how Intuit is the reason filing your taxes is neither free nor easy. Title insurance is a $16 billion industry. They will likely try to prevent decentralized alternatives from pushing them into their (inevitable) obsolescence. What's to stop Google from removing a decentralized video service like LBRY from the Play Store if it starts becoming a true competitor with YouTube? What's to stop twitter from banning tweets promoting decentralized alternatives like BitClout? I'm not sure how this will all play out, but I doubt it will be pretty.

Incentives for clean energy

As a member of the human species, I was initially baffled as to why my fellow humans were so insistent on destroying the only little rock in this universe where we are able to survive right now.

Not sure who to credit for this image, sorry.

It makes sense, though. Our species is very bad at:

  • Understanding complex cause-effect relationships
  • Prioritizing the (distant) future
  • Caring about people outside our immediate tribe

Conversely, we're very good at:

  • Justifying behavior that fulfills our desires

"Yeah, destroying a couple hundred acres of rainforest sucks, but I have to think of my family. I want to provide them with the best life possible. And that dumbass Jim makes more money than me, and I really can't handle it. And his company pollutes the planet far more than mine. So there."

Many of us are at least trying to get our shit together. And it is resulting in:

  • Consumer demand for environmentally beneficial processes
  • A direct link between environmental impact and public image
  • Tax incentives for not destroying the planet

For example, it's not very hard to get a big loan and a fat tax credit for an electric vehicle charging station.

And whether you live in Japan, the US, or somewhere else, there's a good chance you'll find the government incentivizing carbon-cutting investments.

CEO: (sniffling) People are being mean to me on twitter. They say our company is ruining the environment.

CFO: Tough shit, man. Taking care of the environment would hurt our profits too much.

PR Guy: Not so fast, guys. We can just throw some money into a carbon capture project.

CFO: The only place we'll be throwing money is into our pockets.

PR Guy: Yeah, but we get all this investment back because of the tax incentives. Add in the publicity we'll get, and we actually profit more from this.

CEO: (posts new profile photo)

Negative environmental impact is low-hanging fruit for haters. If you see something you don't like, find out the ways it negatively affects the environment, then get everyone riled up about that.

Once again, Bitcoin gives us a good example. Bitcoin mining companies consume a lot of power. So if you don't like Bitcoin (maybe because you're a little salty that you didn't get in early enough to make money), you can write articles like this one from the New Yorker: Why Bitcoin is bad for the environment.

It doesn't matter that Bitcoin scales much more nicely — and therefore uses less energy — than something like the banking industry. (And it's only a matter of time until DeFi is larger than traditional banking. Why pay middle men if you don't need to anymore?)

It doesn't matter that energy consumption is different from carbon emissions, and we're not sure if Bitcoin is 73% carbon neutral, 39% carbon neutral, more, less, or somewhere in between.

It doesn't matter that Bitcoin mining protocols, which encourage creating power as cheaply as possible, will push the world more and more toward the cheapest source: renewable energy. (Although renewable might or might not mean clean.)

It doesn't matter that clothes dryers and Christmas lights also use a shitload of energy.

All that matters is that environmental footprint is a nice go-to when you're looking to attack just about any large endeavor.

Bitcoin is a nice example of this because the supporters and detractors of it tend to be pretty hardcore. But you could campaign against anything you don't like by pointing out the ways in which it hurts the environment, be it a company, a country, or a blockchain protocol... and you'd probably get a lot of people on your side as a result.

Companies (i.e. the ones harming the environment the most) don't like getting a bad image, so these types of attacks will push them toward more environmentally friendly practices, whether or not they actually care about the environment. We'll see more companies acting like Ubisoft, for instance, which just did a little PR parkour from "diversifying its workforce" to "carbon reduction."

Here's where things get really interesting:

You can't create carbon credits out of thin air (pun intended). So we're rapidly approaching a severe supply-and-demand imbalance. Companies will want them, but quite a bit of work and time are needed to create them. You can't just plant a few trees.

Interesting side note: concrete production in China creates more carbon pollution than all of the cars on the planet. Will China actually go carbon neutral? Not without incentive, I'd guess. But what happens when you can filter your Amazon shopping to remove all carbon negative products (something on their radar)? Sounds like incentive to me. Will it happen this decade? I guess we'll see.

Smart everything

We've been hearing about A.I. for quite some time now. A few years ago, I heard an interview of futurist Kevin Kelly. He was asked how someone could profit from the trends in technology.

His answer was simple: Take something and stick A.I. onto it.

Makes sense. We're entering the age of smart everything. Smart cars. Smart greenhouses. Smart home gyms. Smart ovens.

How many products or services that you interact with are not smart? Do your sprinklers know how much to water your plants? Does your AC turn on when you start driving home? Do you have to operate your vehicle at all, even though human beings are awful drivers? Does it take five minutes of answering a robot's stupid questions before you can talk to a customer support representative who can actually solve your problem? Do you have to move your clothes from the washing machine to the dryer, separating stuff that has to be hang-dried? Do you waste a monumental amount of school time interacting with stuff you already know or that is not relevant to you?

Your grandchildren are going to laugh at you someday.

How did you ever live like that?

A handful of the things they'll laugh about will be rectified in the 2020's.

Rampant redistribution

The physical distribution of products, people, and organizations is set to change.

Take food, for example. About 5 years ago, I got super interested in urban farming. I read about some dude in Vancouver growing tomatoes in people's front yards and selling it to restaurants.

Considering that produce usually travels something like 1,500 miles from farm to plate, the idea of getting it from down the street is pretty appealing, wouldn't you say?

But farms take up a lot of space, so urban farming on a large scale doesn't make much sense logistically. Tech to the rescue. Startups like iFarm are doing vertical urban farming — growing more stuff in less space.

With the right technology, smart vertical farming can save space and water, so it seems inevitable that our food won't be traveling 1,500 miles on average by the end of this decade.

Fun fact: Some companies are growing bananas in Hokkaido, the freezing-cold island in the north of Japan. Some of them are fancy $10 bananas. I've always loved the yellow mangoes in Thailand and the huge dragon fruit you can get in Vietnam. But you can hardly ever get them in the US. And when you do, they're about 5% as tasty. But maybe some super high-tech greenhouse will start growing this fruit for me soon? Maybe a place within a 100-mile radius? A guy can dream.

Food aside, another question begs to be answered:

Why is anything other than raw materials and people traveling across the globe?

Additive manufacturing — more commonly known as 3d printing — is still in its infancy. Or at least, adoption of it is. When I first heard about it over 10 years ago, I was convinced that in the near future, simple products like toothbrushes wouldn't be shipped thousands of miles when I bought them. A 3d printer in my neighborhood would just create them as local people ordered them.

I suspect that Amazon is what really prevented this. Their logistical excellence makes shipping times short, which makes it seem like things aren't traveling all that far. With their newfound commitment to reducing carbon emissions, maybe more and more products they sell will actually be 3d printed at your local distribution facility, then delivered by a drone.

The hype around 3d printing may have faded, but the true believers have been putting in the work. This report estimates that the $16.5 billion 3d printing industry will grow to $62 billion by 2028, and I heard an add for Trends just this morning stating it would be over $300 billion by 2035. Wish I could find their source for this.

This is one area where I sense the impending change but struggle to see exactly how it plays out. Say I wanted to buy a case for a custom-built PC. I could buy one from Newegg. But some of these are just a hunk of metal and plastic. If there was an online marketplace of 3d printable designs, why couldn't I just buy the schematics for the absolutely perfect case for me and print it myself, maybe at my local 3d print shop? Will this type of marketplace exist? I don't know. But things will be made differently and in different places than before.

Perhaps the most significant of redistributions will be that of people. While I'd love to see mature network unions becoming a thing before the end of this decade, I'm not sure how long that societal change will take. Two changes that I do think we can count on in the 2020's are:

  • Where people live
  • Who they work for

The age of the a salary with benefits is dying. Even the world's top earners aren't tied to one company. Jeff Bezos has Amazon, but he also has Blue Origin. Elon Musk has Tesla, but he also has SpaceX. Jack Dorsey is the CEO of both Twitter and Square.

Even in my case, I have NativShark, but I also run a content creation company that makes royalties from books published in Japan. And I run this site, as well.

Speaking of NativShark, we used to dream of this big team of employees, but now we try to get contracted workers for almost everything. Of the 9 people and counting on our content production team, only 2 of them are salaried employees. As a company, we don't want the liability or the legal headache of a full-time employee.

If a list of unchanging job requirements can be drafted, then in 99% of cases, the people doing those jobs should be contracted workers. Conversely, salaried work will become synonymous with creative work. Your job changes from day to day, week to week, and month to month. You are adaptable. You bring unpredictable value to the company.

On the other side of this trend, we have individuals who don't want to be slaves of companies. Why work 40 hours per week for one company when you could work 10 hours per week for 3 companies and make just as much money? More job security. More freedom. More time to do what you want.

Legendary VC investor Mike Maples makes a good case for why this trend will continue in this podcast interview.

Fewer people will be tied to a single company. Even those who are tied to a single company are less likely to be tied to a physical location — maybe around 22% of the US workforce by 2025.

The consequence to this newfound location independence will be that people go where they are treated best. Taxes too high in California? Move to Florida. Or Washington. Or Texas. Cities and states will become more and more like startups, recruiting residents the way a company recruits employees. Miami's Mayor Francis Suarez realized this early, and he has already attracted billions of capital to the city.

On the international level, this is why we're seeing more and more digital nomad visas. And this is one reason why the president of El Salvador made it the first nation to accept Bitcoin as legal tender and launched a golden visa for Bitcoin-denominated investors.

People are going to move, and they'll go where they're treated best. Where they have the most opportunity. The most freedoms. And, of course, the lowest taxes.

A humongous wealth gap

It's common knowledge that the wealth gap has been getting bigger and bigger over the last few decades:

From Wikipedia

People love to post charts like this in articles about how we should tax the rich, provide Universal Basic Income (UBI), raise the minimum wage, etc.

Basically, the common thread is that capitalism is causing the widening gap, and they want the government to fix it. The average income earner unfortunately doesn't understand that the government is one of the main drivers of the widening wealth gap.

Let's ignore the fact that raising the minimum wage might not work, instead looking at the current government policies and how they in fact will make the lives of average income earners much more difficult.

At the time of this writing, the US national debt is $28.4 trillion. It will be much higher by the time you read this. You can check the current debt here. Annual federal tax revenue is $3.4 trillion. Meanwhile, federal government spending is $7 trillion per year.

In other words, the government is spending twice as much money as it gets in taxes.

What are their options?

  • Lower expenses
  • Raise taxes
  • Lower the value of the dollar
  • Take on more debt

The current administration has made it clear that they want to increase spending and taxes. Since it's impossible to raise taxes enough to solve (or even slow) the debt problem, let's look at the last two options.

The government is both lowering the value of the dollar and taking on more debt simultaneously.

For example, in 2020 the Fed printed trillions upon trillions of dollars. What do they do with this money? For the most part, they bonds: (1) Treasury securities and (2) mortgage-backed securities.

As of January 2021, they were buying $80 billion of the former and $40 billion of the latter every month with no signs of stopping.

When the Fed buys Treasury securities, the government is essentially creating new money (i.e. lowering its value) and taking on more debt. But what's the deal with mortgage-backed securities?

With these, the Fed is buying big packages of home loans from major banks. Being a huge bank is an awesome business. You loan a guy $600,000 for a home purchase, charge a bunch of fees on the transactions, then immediately sell that mortgage to the government, getting your initial $600,000 back. A zero-risk way to make money!

Needless to say, this incentivizes banks to give out as many mortgage loans as they possibly can at the lowest rates possible. So average people can very easily get loans to buy homes.

Suddenly, it makes a lot of sense that home prices have hit record highs following all these purchases of mortgage-backed securities by the Fed. Here is the Fed's balance sheet from 2018 to January 2021:

From the Fed's official site

And the median home price for the same period:


It's almost like banks decided that issuing a lot more home loans was a great idea, since they could flip them to the government right away.

More generally, we could say that asset prices went up along with money printing. Here's the S&P 500 for the same period:

From MarketWatch

And here, my friends, is the wealth distribution in the US for the same period:

From the Fed. That little tiny line at the bottom is the bottom 50%

The distribution of assets owned looks similarly dismal for the people living paycheck to paycheck:

From the Fed

But surely there is more at work here. The economy is a massive, complex beast, and three seemingly correlated graphs can't really explain entire trends.

What about those stimulus checks, for example?

For example, the government gave out $500 billion in loans to small businesses because of COVID-19, then forgave over 80% of those loans. In other words, it gave hundreds of billions of dollars to businesses for free.

And they also gave out trillions upon trillions in stimulus checks.

What happened to that money?

Well, if you're an average income earner, you probably used it to pay your bills. Or maybe to buy an Xbox. If you're a business, you were required to use it on payroll. But that just means you've freed up the same amount of money to be used somewhere else in the case that your business wasn't actually affected negatively by COVID-19 — a rather common phenomenon.

In short, if you don't have a lot of money, you spend the money the government gives you. So do all the other everyday people getting this free money. Demand goes up, supply stays the same, and prices rise (i.e. inflation). This also puts more money into the assets on the receiving end — business owners. They don't spend the money. They invest it in more assets. Asset prices rise.

This is the fundamental problem with UBI. I can't count how many articles I've seen about how UBI solves all the world's problems. I'm not sure where people think this money will come from, but it looks like the government wants it to come from thin air. And if that's the case, it would just mean higher inflation and higher asset prices.

Higher inflation and higher asset prices is great if you're, say, a real estate investor. You get a loan for an investment property at 4% interest. Inflation is higher than 4%, so you essentially got that money for free, seeing as how the value of the property goes up more than 4%.

But higher inflation and higher asset prices sucks if you're not an investor. Does your salary increase more than the price of assets? That certainly doesn't seem to be how this is playing out for most people:

From Clever

Also, RIP to people living in California:

From Clever

Even if wages did go up 4% year over year, what if inflation is higher than that?

Since 1821, 98% of countries that hit 130% debt to GDP have defaulted on their sovereign debt, a ratio that the US has now reached. Usually this default is in the form of high inflation. Will that happen? Will the government make up some reason to only default on part of the debt, perhaps the amount owned by China? (At a mere $1 trillion, not enough to solve the problem, but perhaps enough for a small respite.) No one really knows what will happen.

One thing seems like a foregone conclusion, however: money printing will be on full blast.

The rich get richer. The poor get poorer.

"Wait a sec. Just tax the billionaires!" That's where we'll get the money. Let's not consider the fact that much of Europe tried that, realized it failed, and then scrapped the idea. In France, for example, tens of thousands of millionaires just left the country to avoid paying. Let's also not consider all the problems with (attempts at) taxing unrealized capital gains or the fact that it's very hard to tax a billionaire when they don't make much of an income or sell assets for capital gains.

And let's definitely not consider how government spending doesn't solve economic problems (though it may kick them down the road): "Evidence illustrates that there is a persistent robust negative relationship between the level (and expansion of) government expenditures and the growth of GDP.  Our findings indicate that a 10% increase in government expenditures as a percent of GDP results in approximately a 1 percentage point reduction in GDP growth." (Forbes)

In any case, it seems the wealth gap will continue to widen. Presumably this will lead to more divisive politics, social unrest, and inane government policies.

Black swan events

By definition, I don't know what these will be. But we can assume that they will happen, and when they do they will dramatically accelerate some trends, while eliminating others.

COVID-19, for example, was a black swan event. No one could have predicted it to happen when and how it did, and it had drastic consequences.

What if a massive volcanic eruption plunged the world into darkness for 18 months straight? (It has happened before.)

What if the singularity occurred, and computers were suddenly smarter than humans?

What if aliens arrived and invited us to join their intergalactic society?

What would happen then? We don't know, but by trying to guess, maybe we can improve our current strategies ever so slightly.

Speaking of which...


Okay, so we've got:

  • Emerging tech (Web 3.0, smart everything, 3d printing, etc.)
  • Environmental pressures
  • Widespread decentralization
  • Centralized resistance
  • Rampant redistribution
  • Spiraling debt and crazy government spending
  • A widening wealth gap

What is the vector through this minefield that results in a huge monetary gain for your average person with money or time to invest?

Obviously, I don't know. Foresight is hard, remember? But I'll at least try to guess.

Some ideas:

  • Hodl Bitcoin or become an expert (top 1%) in all things crypto
  • Invest in the carbon credit market
  • Invest in good startups
  • Invest in any inflation-friendly assets, such as real estate
  • Find the cities and countries that will do the best job at attracting people, then invest there
  • Start a business that capitalizes on anything described in this article

Note that lack of resources is not an excuse to ignore one of these opportunities. You might not know the first thing about building an AI-powered sprinkler system. That doesn't mean you can't get a license to sell someone else's.

To give another example, the boba tea company Gong Cha doesn't have the same tech as Uber. But they opened a bunch of shops in Tokyo during 2020-2021 that only sell to food-delivery services like Uber Eats. With lockdowns and everything else, lots of shops have to close. But delivery booms, so they caught a ride on the trend. And they probably saved a ton of money on "low-quality real estate" in the process. What trend can you capitalize on without having X resource?

If you have ideas, I'd love to hear them. Same if you find some blunders or omissions in this article. You can contact me here.