Jim O'Neill on BRICS and the Dollar: From 'Fantasy' to Payment Infrastructure Reality

For more than two decades, the BRICS bloc has talked about challenging the U.S. dollar's dominance. Now, the economist who coined the term says that goal is no longer a fantasy—though he warns the gap between ambition and action remains wide. Here is a detailed breakdown of what has changed in Jim O'Neill's assessment, what payment infrastructure BRICS is actually building, and what political obstacles—including U.S. tariff threats and internal rifts—still stand in the way.

---

1. O'Neill's changed assessment

Jim O'Neill, the former Goldman Sachs economist who coined "BRIC" in 2001, has changed his mind on the bloc's ability to develop alternatives to the U.S. dollar—but only up to a point.

Before (2024–early 2025): O'Neill was dismissive. In October 2024 he said BRICS was "for the fairies" until China and India got serious about the project, arguing the grouping lacked the political will to challenge the dollar. He repeatedly said the bloc was diminishing in significance.

Shift (early–mid 2026): By February 2026, O'Neill reopened the debate, saying recent geopolitical shifts may be changing the calculation and that he had long doubted a shared BRICS currency but now saw a plausible opening. In July 2026, he told Reuters explicitly that BRICS alternatives to the dollar are no longer a "fantasy," though he still described the group's output as heavy on symbolism and light on concrete policy.

Why he changed his view: Several factors appear to have moved his assessment:

• The perception that a gradual shift away from U.S. dollar dominance is "taking root."
• The U.S. itself may be accelerating its own financial decline through aggressive tariff policies and weaponization of the dollar.
• The bloc's technical infrastructure (BRICS Pay, CBDC linkages) moved from concept to pilot phase.

What hasn't changed: O'Neill continues to argue that China remains the indispensable anchor of BRICS—"still possibly as big as the U.S. within the next decade" —and that without genuine commitment from both China and India, the de-dollarization agenda stalls.

---

2. Payment infrastructure the bloc is building

BRICS is constructing a multi-layered, dollar-independent payment ecosystem:

Layer	What it is	Status
BRICS Pay	A blockchain-based cross-border payment platform enabling transactions in local currencies, capable of processing 20,000 transactions/second.	Piloted in 2025; officially rolled out by May 2026.
CBDC interconnection	India's Reserve Bank proposed linking the central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) of all BRICS nations into an interoperable network for cross-border trade and tourism settlement.	Proposed Jan 2026; top of agenda for the 2026 summit hosted by India.
"Unit" digital asset	A proposed gold-backed digital currency (40% gold, 60% a basket of BRICS currencies) intended as a settlement token.	Still in proposal stage; faces internal disagreement.
Local currency trade push	Bilateral agreements among BRICS members to settle trade in national currencies rather than dollars (e.g., China-Russia yuan-rouble trade, India-UAE rupee-dirham deals).	Growing but still a small fraction of overall BRICS trade.

The strategic goal is to create a payment messaging and settlement system that bypasses both SWIFT and dollar-denominated clearing. The 2024 Kazan summit declaration explicitly endorsed developing such alternatives.

---

3. Political obstacles remaining

U.S. tariff threats (external pressure)

Trump has repeatedly and explicitly threatened BRICS nations with severe tariffs if they pursue de-dollarization:

• January 2025: Trump warned on Truth Social that any BRICS nation attempting to replace the U.S. dollar would face 100% tariffs and be cut off from U.S. markets.
• July 2025: He escalated, posting that any country "aligning themselves with the anti-American policies of BRICS will be charged an additional 10% tariff" with "no exceptions." He reiterated the threat days later, calling BRICS a threat to U.S. economic supremacy.
• Effectiveness note: Analysts at the Lowy Institute argue that Trump's tariff-centered politics have actually succeeded in pushing some BRICS nations toward caution, not away from the dollar. The 2025 Rio summit conspicuously avoided any mention of de-dollarization or local currency trade in its final 126-point declaration—a stark contrast to the 2024 Kazan Declaration.

Internal misalignment

• China–India rivalry: The two largest BRICS economies are strategic competitors. O'Neill himself says the bloc "is for the fairies until China and India get serious." India has resisted any architecture that would give the yuan a central role, while China pushes for RMB internationalization.
• No institutional coherence: BRICS lacks a formal secretariat, treaty framework, or enforcement mechanism. Members have widely divergent political systems (democracies vs. autocracies), economic structures, and geopolitical alignments.
• Conservative central banks: Central banks across BRICS (especially in India and Brazil) have been institutionally cautious about advancing a de-dollarization agenda, according to the Stimson Center.
• China's crypto restrictions: Beijing's tight controls on domestic cryptocurrency and digital asset use have prevented the bloc from adopting a unified blockchain-based settlement layer.
• Geopolitical splits: Russia and Iran push aggressively for de-dollarization due to sanctions pressure, while India, Brazil, and South Africa prefer a slower, less confrontational approach that avoids antagonizing Washington.
• Dominant dollar network effects: Even BRICS nations continue to use the dollar for the majority of their international trade because of its liquidity, stability, and established clearing infrastructure.

---

In short: O'Neill no longer dismisses BRICS dollar alternatives as fantasy—the payment infrastructure is being built (BRICS Pay, CBDC links, local currency trade channels). But the bloc's deep political fractures—China-India rivalry, conservative central banks, conflicting geopolitical priorities—combined with Trump's explicit tariff threats, mean the gap between symbolic ambition and concrete delivery remains very wide.