LiveUS-China & global orderWestern cycleAnchors pending

By 2030, at least 40% of critical-minerals supply chains (rare earths, lithium, cobalt, nickel) are governed by bloc-aligned agreements (Minerals Security Partnership vs China-Africa-Latin-America) rather than open-market pricing?

As of 6 Oct · 22:12 UTCResolves 31 Dec 20302 movers0 pressure moments
Timeline A · Full BifurcationReality
45%
Crowd 75%Gap +30

By 2030, the US-led Minerals Security Partnership and allied trade blocs have locked in exclusive supply agreements for at least 40% of global rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and nickel flows. Major producers in Australia, Canada, and Indonesia sign long-term contracts tied to bloc membership rather than spot-market bids. China's dominance in rare-earth processing fractures as allied nations build competing refining capacity. Price discovery shifts from commodity exchanges to government-negotiated terms.

Timeline B · Managed RivalryReality
55%
Crowd 25%Gap −30

Open-market pricing remains the norm for most critical minerals through 2030, despite bloc-formation efforts. China retains processing leverage while competing agreements fail to consolidate more than 35% of supply chains into formal political alignment. Producers play buyer groups against each other, staying outside exclusive blocs. Spot markets and traditional futures exchanges continue setting reference prices for the majority of traded volume.

crowd 75
The quiet paththe one nobody’s watching

Taiwan conflict or alliance collapse could shatter both bloc and market frameworks, leaving the 40% threshold unmeasurable.

6%
The read
The underlying structure favors Full Bifurcation (55%) over Managed Rivalry (45%) — the signal is real but noisy.

Two trajectories through us-china & global order: Managed Rivalry and Full Bifurcation. The Signals below describe what would be visible if each trajectory is landing; the Levers list what could bend it. The third timeline — the one neither Managed Rivalry nor Full Bifurcation captures — is where the honest scope-limit sits.

Where reality is heading

A, 80% bandCrowd today
Projected reality support to 31 Dec 2028A rises from 41% to about 52% with an 80% band of 33 to 71. B falls from 53% to about 44%. Quiet path near 4 to 6%. Crowd today: A 55%.100%7550250Crowd today · A 75%A ~52%B ~44%P ~4%NowJan 2027Jan 202831 Dec 2028
Reality crosses toward A in early 2028. Today’s crowd number sits at the top of A’s band, possible but optimistic. View as table

The movers, ranked by leverage

01
US export-control severity tierDetermines whether tech decoupling stabilizes or accelerates
leverage 0
Conditional
02
Multilateral institution reform paceDetermines whether Global South remains inside G7-adjacent frameworks or defects to BRICS+
leverage 0
Conditional

What would change our mind

Signals toward A
  • Under this timeline dominance, the US-China rivalry is managed through selective decoupling in strategic sectors (semiconductors, AI, biotech) while preserving multilateral coordination on climate, pandemics, and financial stability
  • G20 and expanded G7+ frameworks absorb BRICS demands via institutional reform (IMF quota revisions, UN Security Council expansion discussions)
  • dollar retains reserve-currency status through 2035 but yuan/euro/gold share rises to 25-30% of reserves
  • tech decoupling stabilizes as a 'small yard, high fence' equilibrium with defined export-control regimes and cross-border data agreements
  • Taiwan status quo preserved via strategic ambiguity + deterrence-plus-engagement
Signals toward B
  • Under this timeline dominance, the rivalry accelerates into full bifurcation
  • US-led bloc (US, UK, Japan, Australia, India-tilt, GCC-tilt) vs China-led bloc (China, Russia, Iran, Central Asia, portions of Africa and Latin America) with hardened tech, financial, and security perimeters
  • dollar weaponization (SWIFT exclusions, secondary sanctions) accelerates yuan-settlement in China-bloc trade to 40-50% by 2032
  • BRICS+ moves toward hard-currency alternative (gold-backed settlement, mBridge CBDC network)
  • Taiwan crisis brought forward to 2027-2030 window as US commitment credibility tested

Evidence