Why he changed his view: Several factors appear to have moved his assessment:
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.
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.
Trump has repeatedly and explicitly threatened BRICS nations with severe tariffs if they pursue de-dollarization:
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.