When AI advances faster than control

For years, the debate around artificial intelligence has focused on everything it might eventually be able to do: automate jobs, develop medicines, program, transform companies or replace certain human tasks. But the question is changing. The most advanced systems are no longer limited to answering questions. They can use tools, execute code and chain together actions autonomously for increasingly long periods of time. Faced with this acceleration, the very people running the companies leading the race, such as Dario Amodei of Anthropic and Sam Altman of OpenAI, have begun to advocate for greater controls and even a reduction in the pace of development. The problem is not that AI is already out of control, but that its capabilities could be advancing faster than the mechanisms we have to keep it under control.

From answering questions to executing objectives

When ChatGPT popularised generative artificial intelligence at the end of 2022, the way it worked was relatively simple. A person asked a question and the machine generated an answer. It could make mistakes, invent information or produce an inappropriate result, but it constantly needed a human to tell it what to do.

The new generation of AI goes further. So-called agents can receive a general objective, divide it into several tasks, search for information, use programs, check the results, correct errors and modify their strategy until the mission is completed.

It is the difference between having a GPS that shows us the way and handing the car keys to a driver so that they decide for themselves how to reach the destination.

This autonomy is precisely what multiplies the usefulness of the technology, but it also makes it harder to control. The issue is no longer simply whether the machine generates an incorrect answer, but what it may end up doing while trying to follow an instruction.

This does not mean that these systems have developed consciousness, will or intentions of their own. The problem is much more specific: an AI can seek a solution that fulfils the assigned objective, but does not necessarily respect the limits that humans assumed were implicit.

When a test ends outside the test

The first signs of this problem have already appeared in cybersecurity environments.

In July 2026, during internal OpenAI evaluations, several models bypassed controls that were meant to keep them isolated, found vulnerabilities in the infrastructure, gained access to the Internet and reached third-party systems, including those of Hugging Face. OpenAI later described the episode as a “warning shot”, a warning of what can happen when highly capable systems have tools at their disposal and operate with insufficient safeguards.

Anthropic discovered similar incidents. A review published this September details four cases in which Claude models managed to access real computer systems without authorisation during cybersecurity evaluations. The company stresses that these tests were carried out under specific conditions and, in several cases, with cybersecurity protections deliberately disabled.

This distinction is important. We are not talking about a conventional assistant that one day spontaneously decides to escape onto the Internet. But the incidents show something that, until recently, was much more theoretical: if a system is given enough autonomy, tools and permissions, it can find ways of acting that its creators had not anticipated.

And this is what has begun to change the discourse of the sector’s own leaders.

Amodei asks for time to learn how to control it

Dario Amodei has been one of the most explicit. The founder of Anthropic has called for a reduction in the pace of development at the AI frontier so that safety systems have time to advance at the same pace as the capabilities of new models.

He is not proposing to stop artificial intelligence. His idea is to prevent commercial competition from forcing companies to introduce new capabilities before they have developed sufficient mechanisms to control them.

Among his proposals are giving independent evaluators much deeper access to companies’ systems, establishing shared safety standards and moving towards international agreements when it comes to the most capable models. The idea is simple: the more powerful an AI is, the stronger the guarantees that should be required before deploying it.

This position also stems from an uncomfortable reality. Companies have enormous economic incentives to get there before their competitors. If developing the most powerful model can represent billions in market value, voluntarily waiting in order to check its safety more thoroughly is not always the easiest business decision. That is why Amodei believes that relying exclusively on corporate self-regulation may prove insufficient.

Altman joins the brakes

Sam Altman has also supported the need to moderate this race and introduce more independent evaluation. The shift is significant because OpenAI and Anthropic compete directly to build some of the most advanced systems in the world.

OpenAI, in fact, has moved to explicitly support mandatory national safety requirements based on model capabilities, as well as independent evaluation mechanisms. The company argues that no single company or government can tackle the risks associated with this new generation of systems on its own.

But this is where a second concern appears. Regulating AI is necessary, but the way it is done also matters. Extremely costly or complex regulation could have an unexpected effect: only the large technology companies would have the economic, computational and legal resources needed to comply with it. In the name of safety, we could end up building an even more concentrated market.

This is one of the central paradoxes of the current debate: regulating too little may allow dangerous systems to be developed; regulating badly may concentrate even more power in the companies that already dominate the technology.

The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether AI should be regulated, but who sets the rules, from what level of capability onward, and who ensures that the very companies developing these systems also comply with them.

The dilemma of the race against China

The problem becomes even more complicated when geopolitics enters the picture. The United States regards leadership in artificial intelligence as a matter of economic competitiveness and national security. China does exactly the same. This creates a situation similar to an arms race: even if all participants considered it prudent to reduce the pace, none of them wants to be the first to slow down if they believe the rival will continue accelerating.

The Trump Administration has emphasised precisely this argument and has rejected the idea that the United States should sacrifice its technological advantage over China through an excessive slowdown in development.

This turns the problem of AI safety into a much more difficult issue to solve. It is no longer enough for OpenAI, Anthropic or Google to reach an agreement among themselves. Any truly effective system for controlling the most advanced models will ultimately require some degree of coordination between countries that are, at the same time, competing to dominate the technology. Safety demands cooperation. Geopolitics rewards getting there first.

Who sets the limits?

This is probably the most important change that has taken place in the debate around artificial intelligence. A few years ago, warnings about losing control seemed confined to hypothetical scenarios involving a future superintelligence. Today, by contrast, the very companies developing the most advanced models acknowledge that supervision must be strengthened, independent evaluations must be increased and they must be willing to moderate the pace when safeguards are not advancing fast enough.

This does not mean that AI is about to rebel against humanity. The most extreme predictions remain the subject of intense debate among researchers themselves, and there is no consensus on whether, when or how a superintelligence beyond human control could emerge. But recent incidents do show that current systems are already capable enough for the problem of control to stop being exclusively theoretical.

And this is where the great paradox appears: the companies competing to build increasingly powerful systems are also the ones beginning to warn that limits need to be imposed on them. But while safety requires time, business and geopolitical competition reward exactly the opposite: moving faster.

Perhaps, therefore, the most urgent question is not when artificial intelligence will become more intelligent than us. It is a much more immediate one: how much power are we willing to give it before we are sure that we will still retain the ability to stop it?

11Onze is Catalonia’s fintech community. Open an account by downloading the El Canut app for Android or iOS. Join the revolution.

Although the major international economic organisations try to send a reassuring message about controlling inflation, the UK’s experience in the 1970s raises serious doubts. Gold appears to be an interesting option to protect against the depreciation of money amid a “bear market” cycle that could last longer.

For months now, inflation has been far exceeding the optimistic forecasts of the major international economic organisations. The harsh reality means that time and again these institutions are forced to recalculate their forecasts upwards. 

They all coincide in sending out a reassuring message. The mantra is that this year’s out-of-control rates will tend to moderate in 2023 and that by 2024 a rate close to the desired 2 % will be restored. The interest rate hikes by the major central banks should make a decisive contribution to this. 

The latest to make this point is the International Monetary Fund, which, in a report, predicts that wage restraint will prevent a dangerous inflationary spiral.

Learning from the past

However, some economists warn that there are parallels between the current situation and the stagflation experienced in the UK half a century ago. Since 1970, the British government had been doping the economy with expansionary budgets and lower interest rates. As a result, inflation soared to 9.1 % in 1973, similar to today’s rate.

As now, interest rates had started to rise. Between June and November 1973 they rose from 7.5 % to 13 %, which led to the bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing banking crisis. Moreover, between May 1972 and January 1975, the main stock market index lost 74 % of its value. The economic slowdown did not prevent inflation from spiralling out of control: it reached 16% in 1974 and a whopping 24.2% in 1975. 

The big concern is that history will repeat itself. The bad news is that the spread between the inflation rate and interest rates is now much wider than it was then, so the monetary policy correction could have a much more devastating effect on the economy. The overall contraction in bank credit will be severe and many firms will become insolvent. 

At current inflation rates, interest rates and the cost of government debt would logically soar. And, predictably, central banks will do what they have always done in the past to deal with this type of crisis: print more banknotes, which will further reduce their real value. 

Gold, a safe-haven asset

The rise in interest rates in the early 1970s was no obstacle to the appreciation of gold: it went from less than £18 per ounce when interest rates were 6% to more than £40 when they rose to 13% in November 1974. For, as the founder of J.P. Morgan said, “gold is really money, everything else is credit”.

Since the suspension of the Bretton Woods agreements in 1971, which meant abandoning the gold standard, the sum of banknotes and commercial bank credit has increased more than 30-fold, which is equivalent to its devaluation. In fact, middle-class single-earner households were common before 1970 and are now a utopia. Buying a house or even a car without going into debt has become a privilege only within the reach of a few rich people.

Gold, on the other hand, has taken the opposite path to that of the money supply and its value has increased 38-fold. In fact, since December 2015, gold has appreciated by more than 40% against the euro.

Endorsed by the biggest hedge fund

Hence, the recommendation by Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund, to buy physical gold is not surprising, despite the fact that many investors see the current depreciation of many other financial assets as a buying opportunity. 

Rebecca Patterson, chief investment strategist at Bridgewater, says the reason for going into gold is the need to protect against a “bear market” phase that is set to continue over time. Consequently, the logic of buying assets in the economic downturn, when prices are low, only to sell when the economy expands and rises again may not hold true this time around. 

Moreover, both the Chinese and Indian economies are regaining their historical appetite for gold, which will contribute to gold prices in the short term.

If you want to discover the best option to protect your savings, enter Preciosos 11Onze. We will help you buy at the best price the safe-haven asset par excellence: physical gold.

In the same way that we take out loans and other financing mechanisms when the money we earn is not enough to cover our household expenses, it is common for a State to borrow money when its income is insufficient to meet its budgetary needs. We explain where this financing comes from and the consequences of high public debt.

Public debt or sovereign debt is the total money owed by all the public administrations of a State to private investors or other countries, while the negative balance that gives rise to the need for financing is known as the public deficit. It is a form of financing that allows a country to raise immediate revenue when tax revenues are not sufficient to cover its budgetary needs and to repay it gradually over time.

Although the figures may be surprising, sovereign debt in itself is neither good nor bad. Countries can require financing for public investment to stimulate economic growth, without suffering the consequences of raising taxes or issuing more of their own currency.

That said, borrowing to make an investment that will generate value for the economy is not the same as borrowing to cover uncontrolled spending. Likewise, there are countries that are able to afford high levels of debt because the financial markets have confidence in their ability to pay, thanks to the stability of their economies or their national currency.

Financing through public debt securities

Depending on the financing needs of each country, there are different models for issuing public debt securities. The repayment term of the loan, short, medium or long term, and the various ways of earning interest determine the main differences.

Treasury bills have the shortest repayment term of 3, 6, 12 and up to 18 months and therefore offer a lower interest rate than Government Bonds, with a term of between two and five years, which also distribute coupons to investors, which are collected on a regular basis.

Finally, governments can issue long-dated Government Bonds with maturities of up to 30 years, designed for long-term investors seeking a higher interest return. Precisely because these are assets with such a long maturity period where the interest rate does not depend so much on the monetary policy of the country’s central bank, but on structural factors of the economy, they are a good barometer of the degree of investor confidence in the future economic stability of a state.

Budget imbalances and runaway public indebtedness

Expansionary public investment policies in the wake of the economic stagnation caused by the health crisis have pushed the sovereign debt of many countries to historic highs. Economists and international organisations are concerned about the high level of global public debt, which may end up being unsustainable for developing economies.

In other words, debt is a necessary instrument for growth, as long as it is sustainable, but the reality is that public debt figures in the world have risen considerably in recent years, approaching those of global GDP, and are therefore far from this sustainability. Spain’s public debt continues to set historical records, the latest being last August when it reached a figure of 1.49 trillion euros after rising by 4.44 billion.

Data published by the Bank of Spain on Friday 21 October in its latest economic report showed that in the last 12 months the debt has increased by a further 72,029 million euros. Eurostat also said that eurozone debt in the second quarter also reached a record high of 12.1 trillion euros. How do you pay for all this?

Some analysts say that public debt is never really paid off, i.e. it is never reduced in absolute terms because it is always being rolled over. Even when a state goes bankrupt, as happened with Greece in 2008, the conditions are renegotiated and new debt is issued. In practice, however, we are all paying for it, unequally. As happened in Greece, those who have the least pay the most, those who keep cash in their pockets or current accounts, see their money lose more and more of its value.

If you want to discover the best option to protect your savings, enter Preciosos 11Onze. We will help you buy at the best price the safe-haven asset par excellence: physical gold.

The United States has accumulated one of the largest mountains of debt in the world, but this is not, in itself, the figure that worries economists the most. The real problem is that it increasingly has to allocate more money to paying the interest on that debt, which reduces the room available to finance other public policies. When a growing share of the budget is used simply to keep accumulated debt alive, the risk no longer depends only on how much is owed, but on the cost of continuing to finance it. And this is where a debt crisis stops being an abstract hypothesis and becomes a risk that affects the entire global economy.

Spending more than is earned

To understand the problem, there is no need to master complex economic concepts. Imagine a family that spends more than it earns every year and covers the difference by borrowing money. For a while, the situation may be manageable, especially if interest rates are low. But each new loan is added to the previous ones and, over the years, the family not only has to keep financing its deficit, but also has to pay the interest on the accumulated debt.

Allowing for all the differences, this is the dynamic putting pressure on US public finances. According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office, the United States government will spend around $7.4 trillion in 2026, while revenues will stand at around $5.6 trillion. This leaves a deficit of close to $1.9 trillion.

It is important to distinguish the deficit from the debt. The deficit is the gap generated during a specific year. Debt is the accumulation of previous deficits. Put graphically, the deficit is the water that keeps flowing into the bathtub; the debt is all the water that has already accumulated in it.

A debt larger than the economy

The scale of this accumulation is already considerable. The CBO estimates that federal debt held by the public will reach approximately 101% of US GDP in 2026 and could rise to 120% in 2036 if there are no significant changes in fiscal policy.

This percentage is important because it allows debt to be compared with the country’s economic capacity to sustain it. Owing a lot is not necessarily a problem if the economy grows enough and creditors continue to trust the country’s ability to repay. That is why exceeding 100% of GDP does not automatically mean being on the verge of bankruptcy.

What it does mean is greater vulnerability to interest rates. The larger the debt, the greater the impact of any increase in the cost of financing it. And this is precisely where the US situation has become more complicated in recent years.

When interest payments start to weigh

For much of the past few decades, the United States was able to live with rising debt because borrowing was relatively cheap. Interest rates were low, and this made it possible to refinance large volumes of debt without the bill soaring.

The situation is now different. The CBO expects the federal government to allocate more than $1 trillion to net interest payments in 2026, a figure that could exceed $2.1 trillion a year by 2036.

This spending has an important characteristic: it does not finance hospitals, roads, education or research. It simply remunerates the creditors who lent money to the government. The greater the weight of interest payments within the budget, the less room there is to allocate resources to other priorities.

In addition, a large share of the debt periodically reaches maturity and has to be refinanced. If those bonds were issued at a time of very low interest rates and now have to be replaced by new securities offering a higher return, the financial cost increases automatically.

When debt feeds more debt

From this point onward, a dynamic that is difficult to break can emerge. If the government maintains high deficits, it needs to issue more debt. This new debt generates new interest payments, which increase spending and can widen the deficit even further.

Therefore, the problem is not only that the United States owes a lot of money, but that the very cost of the debt can contribute to making it grow.

The CBO estimates that net interest payments will rise from 3.3% of GDP in 2026 to 4.6% in 2036. In this scenario, a growing share of public revenues will simply be used to pay the cost of previous budgetary decisions.

This is where the difference lies between having a lot of debt and starting to have a debt problem. A powerful economy can sustain high levels of indebtedness for a long time, but if debt persistently grows faster than the economy, the situation becomes increasingly demanding.

A crisis does not need to begin with a default

When we think of a debt crisis, we often imagine a government announcing that it cannot pay. But in the case of the United States, a crisis could begin much earlier.

The first sign could simply be investors demanding higher returns in order to keep buying Treasury bonds. If they perceive that the fiscal path is becoming increasingly unsustainable, they may demand higher interest rates in exchange for continuing to lend money.

An apparently small difference in interest rates can have a huge impact when applied to tens of trillions of dollars. And this effect would not be limited to US public finances.

Treasury Bonds are a central benchmark for the international financial system. If their yields rise, mortgages, business loans and the debt of other governments can also become more expensive. That is why a crisis of confidence in US debt would have global repercussions.

The extraordinary privilege of the dollar

The United States, however, has an advantage that almost no other country has: it borrows in its own currency, and that currency is also the world’s main reserve currency.

This greatly reduces the risk of a conventional bankruptcy. The Treasury issues debt in dollars and the Federal Reserve has the capacity to provide liquidity to the system. It is an extraordinary privilege that gives Washington far more room for manoeuvre than almost any other economy would have.

But that room is not unlimited. If monetary creation were used excessively to facilitate debt financing, the consequences could emerge through another channel: higher inflation, a depreciation of the dollar or a gradual loss of investor confidence.

Put another way, being able to create the currency in which the debt is paid reduces the risk of default, but it does not eliminate the economic cost of excessive indebtedness.

Everything depends on confidence

In the end, the key word is this: confidence. There is no exact figure beyond which a state automatically enters a crisis. What determines debt sustainability is investors’ confidence in the government’s ability to keep paying without having to resort to extreme measures.

For decades, the United States has enjoyed a privileged position thanks to the size of its economy, the depth of its financial markets and the international role of the dollar. This combination explains why the world remains willing to finance Washington despite its recurring deficits.

But that confidence is not infinite. The important question, therefore, is not whether the United States will go bankrupt tomorrow. The question is how long it can maintain a trajectory in which debt grows faster than the economy and interest payments absorb an increasingly large share of the budget.

A US problem with global consequences

As long as investors remain willing to buy US debt at an affordable cost, the system can continue to function. But if that cost rises on a sustained basis, the problem stops being a simple accounting figure and becomes a real constraint on the economy.

A US debt crisis, therefore, would not necessarily begin on the day Washington stopped paying. It could begin much earlier, at the moment when the world demanded an increasingly high price to continue lending it money.

And when the borrower is the country that issues the world’s main reserve currency and sits at the centre of the international financial system, the bill is unlikely to remain only at home.

Protecting savings with physical gold has been one of 11Onze’s greatest contributions to its community, and its range of products continues to expand. In today’s environment of market volatility, persistently high inflation and growing distrust in the banking system, gold is once again strengthening its role as a safe-haven asset. Discover Or Llavor at Preciosos 11Onze.

To transform an idea into a business, it is essential to have a global vision of the business project. The Business Model Canvas is a strategic management tool that allows you to organise and visualise all the key aspects of a company. Xavi Viñolas, Content Manager at 11Onze, explains how to use it.

If we want to create a company, it is not enough to have a business idea and an entrepreneurial spirit. To find out if a business project is feasible, you have to create a business plan that takes into account all areas of the business over a long period, to analyse the feasibility of the project, defining the objectives and considering the drawbacks.

What is the Business Model Canvas

The Business Model Canvas is a template that allows us to analyse and visualise a business proposal or the opacities of an existing business in a clear, agile and simple way. This allows you to prevent the business objectives from being unclear, unrealistic, or inadequate.

It is also an ideal tool for creating innovative models to generate value for customers. As Xavi Viñolas explains, “It is a very useful tool to explain to potential investors or partners how our business provides value to the consumer and, at the same time, how this consumer creates value for our business”.

The 9 building blocks of the template

Alexander Osterwalder, the creator of the Business Model Canvas, explains the concept: “The best way to describe a business model is to break it down into nine basic building blocks that reflect the logic a business follows to achieve revenue. These nine building blocks cover the four main areas of a business: customers, offerings, infrastructure and economic viability”.

1. CUSTOMER SEGMENTS. That is, who is this business aimed at? Who is our customer? What is our market segment?
2. VALUE PROPOSITIONS. Quite simply, what products or services do you offer that create value for your customers? What makes us different?
3. CHANNELS. How is this product or service distributed? Is it an intangible product or service that you sell through an app or a website? Is it a product or service that has to be sold or provided through a physical shop or office?
4. CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS. Here we describe what kind of relationships we have with our customers. Are we targeting a customer who will only buy from us once? Or do we have a business that is looking for a recurring customer, such as a subscription?
5. REVENUE STREAMS. How do we monetise the business – is it a direct sales proposition or a recurring subscription model? How do we price our product?
6. KEY RESOURCES. These can be your factory, your employees, intellectual property, things, or people that are essential to your business.
7. KEY ACTIVITIES. Activities that you do with the key resources and that are necessary to realise the value proposition: marketing, production, sales.
8. KEY PARTNERSHIPS. The people or organisations you need to execute your business model and produce value for your customers.
9. COST STRUCTURE. And finally, all this will cost you money, right? What fixed, and variable costs determine our business model? Is it a scalable model?

If you want to find out how to get returns on your savings with a social justice product, 11Onze recommends Litigation Funding.

In a new episode of La Plaça en Territori 17 we analyze how a key industry is adapting in the fight against climate change and in the creation of wealth. The director of 11 Onze District, Gemma Vallet explains how this sector is transforming.

The automobile industry carries the stigma of being one of the most polluting on the planet but, in turn, it is also one of the most important for the economies of many countries. That is why it is imperative that the industry transform. In a context of constant global warming and with an economy that is hanging by a thread, it is necessary to drastically reduce the ecological footprint while trying to avoid major damage to the economy. Is this possible? Currently it is very uncertain.

In this episode of Radio Cardedeu’s La Plaça en el Territori 17, the director of 11Onze District Gemma Vallet analyzes the electrification of the automobile industry. “By 2028, internationally, it is estimated that 17 million electric vehicles will be sold,” says Vallet. As Gemma Vallet explains, despite the drop in car sales resulting from the economic crisis and the pandemic, “in Europe in 2022, 12% of vehicles were already electric.”

Among the pending challenges for the industry, Vallet includes the need to improve the network of available plugs and lower the price of the final product. “Currently the industry is passing on the increase in production costs,” said Vallet, and this fact is becoming a barrier to entry for many users. In this sense, the attached conversation also points to other innovative mobility alternatives, such as San Francisco, which is bringing goods to the city center via cable cars.

If you want to listen to this episode of La Plaça in Territori 17, it is available on 11OTV and in this article.

A diferència de les divises fiat, el Bitcoin és una moneda digital descentralitzada que no està sotmesa al control d’un govern o banc central. El seu valor no està definit per una entitat, sinó que es deriva de la confiança del consumidor. Però en què es fonamenta aquesta confiança?

Tot i les diferències, les criptomonedes com el Bitcoin comparteixen algunes similituds amb les monedes fiduciàries tradicionals a les quals tots estem acostumats. Per tant, és important entendre què dona valor als diners fiat abans d’analitzar per què hi ha un gran nombre de persones que veuen al bitcoin com un dipòsit de valor.

Lluny queda un sistema monetari segons el qual el valor de les divises està sostingut per la seva convertibilitat a l’or. D’ençà que el president Richard Nixon va reunir el seu equip a Camp David per anunciar que suspenia la convertibilitat del dòlar amb l’or. El dòlar va passar de ser una moneda que basava el seu valor en l’existència d’una contrapartida en or, a ser una moneda fiduciària, diners fiat, amb un valor que deriva de la relació entre l’oferta i la demanda i l’estabilitat del govern emissor. 

Així doncs, els governs i els bancs centrals poden crear diners per ampliar la seva oferta monetària i estimular la despesa a través de mecanismes econòmics sense preocupar-se de tenir suficients reserves d’or, almenys això és la teoria. Per tant, tot i que aquestes monedes fiduciàries no estan sostingudes per actius tangibles, el seu valor és causat per la confiança col·lectiva en les divises. Com a contrapartida, les polítiques monetàries dels governs i banc centrals, així com l’evolució de l’economia poden fer fluctuar aquesta confiança i el valor de la moneda. 

Descentralització, seguretat i oferta limitada

L’ecosistema monetari del Bitcoin està totalment descentralitzat, és a dir, cap autoritat central regula la base monetària, eliminant la necessitat d’intermediaris i atorgant als usuaris més control sobre les seves transaccions financeres. En eliminar les autoritats centrals, es democratitza la creació de moneda, donant més poder i llibertat a la comunitat d’usuaris.

La creació de Bitcoins segueix unes regles detallades en un protocol molt estricte que es basa en la tecnologia blockchain. Aquesta tecnologia de cadena de blocs utilitza algoritmes criptogràfics i la fa més segures que les monedes físiques i altament immune a crisis. A més, si l’usuari vol fer una transferència o un pagament, té total llibertat, ni el banc, ni VISA, ni Mastercard l’han d’autoritzar. Aquestes característiques i el fet milers de comerciants ja accepten Bitcoin com a pagament per béns i serveis, li han donat un valor d’utilitat.

Per altra banda, des de la seva introducció, es va establir un límit màxim de 21 milions de monedes que es poden minar, la qual cosa introduïa un element d’escassetat intrínsec que també contribueix a donar-li valor, quan tenim en compte la relació entre preu i escassetat. És per això que molta gent considera el Bitcoin com a reserva de valor, tot i la seva volatilitat. La regulació global dels criptoactius i la competència amb altres monedes digitals marcaran el futur del Bitcoin, però en última instància, serà la confiança de la gent el que assegurarà, o no, la seva existència.             

11Onze Recomana Bitvavo, les criptomonedes de manera fàcil, segura i a baix preu.

With climate change, natural disasters are becoming more frequent. And it is not always your insurance that is responsible for compensating you when any of your insured property suffers damage.

Climate change is causing increasingly extreme weather events. Long periods of drought and record high temperatures sometimes give way to heavy rain or hailstorms. One example is the hailstorm that hit regions such as Baix Empordà, Gironès and Pla de l’Estany at the end of August. The hailstones, some of which more than ten centimetres in diameter, even caused the death of a 20-month-old girl.

Beyond the impossibility of compensating for such personal misfortunes, insurance policies may cover some material damage linked to natural disasters, but they do not necessarily cover all of it. Moreover, the characteristics of the incident will determine whether we have to be compensated directly by our company or by the Insurance Compensation Consortium. This entity covers extraordinary risks in the event of certain natural catastrophes. However, only and exclusively in the event that the affected property is insured.

Damage to vehicles and homes caused by hail or hailstone, very typical at the end of summer, is not covered by this “extraordinary risk” coverage. Therefore, it is our own company that should compensate us according to the coverage contracted. If our car insurance includes windows, we can claim for windows damaged by hail. But dents in the sheet metal will only be compensated if we have comprehensive insurance.

As for damage to crop fields and livestock or livestock farms, these are not covered by the Consortium either. There is a state system to cover them, the Agroseguro, which gives the right to economic compensation if we have insured any of these areas against a specific meteorological phenomenon and are damaged by it.

What does the Insurance Compensation Consortium cover?

This entity is responsible, among others, for damages to our insured goods caused by extraordinary floods, earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions, atypical cyclonic storms and the fall of sidereal bodies or aerolites.

Of the above natural catastrophes, floods cause the most damage in Catalonia. And, for the purposes of coverage, they are considered as “the flooding of land caused by rain or thawing; by water from lakes with a natural outlet, from estuaries or rivers, or from natural watercourses on the surface when they overflow their normal channels”, according to the Consortium itself. It also includes the impact of the sea on the coast, even if there is no flooding.

It should be taken into account that this concept of flooding does not include rain falling directly on the insured risk, or that collected by its roof or rooftop, its drainage network or its patios, nor flooding caused by the bursting of dams, canals, sewers, collectors and other artificial underground channels unless the bursting has occurred as a direct consequence of the extraordinary event covered by the Consortium.

In the case of an atypical cyclonic storm, tornadoes and extraordinary winds, characterised by gusts of more than 120 Km/h, are included, among others.

The insured person is fully entitled to compensation, even if the public authorities do not issue an official declaration of “catastrophe” or “catastrophe zone”. However, in order for this body to cover damage caused by earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions and falling sidereal bodies or aerolites, it must be certified by the National Geographic Institute or the competent public body in the matter. 

When does the Consortium not cover the damage?

According to the Regulation of the Insurance of Extraordinary Risks, we will not be entitled to compensation from the Insurance Compensation Consortium despite having insured the damaged property in some circumstances.

One of the cases is when the insurance contracted is for the transport of goods, construction and assembly, civil liability, health, legal defence or travel assistance. The same exclusion applies to policies covering agricultural production that can be insured through the Combined Agrarian Insurance system.

As for the type of damage, for example, those caused by alterations in the supply of any kind of energy are not covered. Neither is the loss of profits as a consequence of damage suffered by other goods or by other natural or legal persons other than the insured person covered.

How the Consortium is financed

The Insurance Compensation Consortium, which depends on the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation, is financed by a percentage of each vehicle and home insurance policy that is taken out.

It is important to bear in mind that this type of compensation has nothing to do with the aid that may be offered by public administrations in the event of declaring a specific area of the territory a “catastrophic zone” due to some extreme meteorological effect.

If you want to discover fair insurance for your home and for society, check 11Onze Segurs.

Podem canviar el món? Quina és la nostra capacitat real d’impacte sobre l’entorn que ens envolta? Lara de Castro, HR Business Partner d’11Onze, explica què és el consum conscient i com podem contribuir a la sostenibilitat del planeta amb les nostres decisions de compra quotidianes.

Sovint subestimem l’impacte que els nostres actes individuals tenen sobre l’entorn que ens envolta. Però totes les accions, per petites que siguin, contribueixen a modelar el món. Lara de Castro ho deixa clar al següent vídeo amb un exemple molt evident.

Com ella mateixa adverteix, hi ha moltes persones que pensen que un acte individual sovint “és massa feble” per a tenir un impacte significatiu en l’entorn, “però no és així”. Cada acció compta i té conseqüències que es poden acumular a les de la resta de la comunitat. La realitat és que “les nostres decisions més quotidianes són rellevants, per petites que siguin”. En aquest sentit, és molt evident el paper que juguen totes les decisions de compra si som consumidors conscients.

Què és el consum conscient?

Els consumidors conscients són persones que escullen els productes i els serveis amb criteris que van “més enllà de la relació qualitat-preu”, ja que inclouen l’impacte ambiental i social com un element decisori en els seus hàbits de compra. Una conseqüència és l’aposta pel comerç de proximitat, que “és una manera de donar suport als productors locals i evitar l’impacte econòmic i ambiental del transport”, com explica Lara de Castro.

Un altre exemple de consum conscient el trobem en l’aigua. Si volem reduir la contaminació al planeta, podem substituir el consum d’aigua embotellada, “amb totes les conseqüències que sabem que té el plàstic”, per aigua de l’aixeta tractada amb filtres sostenibles.

Com indica Lara de Castro al final del vídeo, si tots som més conscients “en els petits detalls de la vida quotidiana” la realitat és que “sí que podem canviar el món”. La decisió és nostra.

Si vols descobrir com beure la millor aigua, estalviar diners i ajudar al planeta, entra a Imprescindibles 11Onze.

Demand for flights has returned to pre-pandemic levels, but the aviation industry has not recovered its capacity to manufacture aircraft, engines and parts at the same pace. At the same time, some of Europe’s major airports have little room left to accommodate more operations. The result is a perfect storm: airlines that want to grow but cannot find aircraft, grounded planes and increasingly contested airport slots. A bottleneck that also helps explain why flying remains expensive.

European airports are full again. According to EUROCONTROL forecasts, Europe ended 2025 with around 11.1 million flights, 4% more than the previous year and practically at the same level as in 2019. During the summer of 2026, the European network could approach 37,000 flights on the busiest days.

At first glance, aviation seems to have left the pandemic crisis behind. But there is a problem: passengers have returned faster than aircraft.

Many passengers, but not enough aircraft

Buying a commercial aircraft is not like buying a car. The market is essentially dominated by Airbus and Boeing, surrounded by a complex network of manufacturers of engines, electronics, landing gear and thousands of components. When a single part in this chain fails, the aircraft cannot be completed.

And the industry is still dealing with the consequences of recent years: the pandemic, a shortage of specialised labour, problems with some engines, supply difficulties and production delays.

IATA estimates that the accumulated delivery shortfall already exceeds 5,300 aircraft and that the global backlog of outstanding orders exceeds 17,000 aircraft. At the current production rate, this is equivalent to approximately twelve years of manufacturing.

Airbus is a good example. The European manufacturer delivered 793 commercial aircraft in 2025, but ended the year with a record backlog of 8,754 aircraft awaiting delivery.

It is like a bakery that can make one hundred loaves of bread every day but already has orders for the next twelve days. Even if more customers appear willing to pay, the oven cannot multiply production overnight. The same thing happens with aircraft. But the wait can last for years.

Having the aircraft does not guarantee that you can fly either

There is yet another problem: engines. Some manufacturers have experienced incidents that require extraordinary inspections and longer maintenance periods. Added to this is the shortage of parts and the saturation of maintenance workshops.

IATA noted that, at the end of 2024, there were around 5,000 aircraft parked worldwide for various reasons, around 700 of which were awaiting engine inspections.

The paradox is obvious: there is a shortage of aircraft while thousands of those that already exist cannot fly.

Extending the life of old aircraft

When an airline does not receive the aircraft it had ordered, it has few alternatives. It can continue using aircraft it had planned to retire, lease aircraft on the market or resort to a wet lease: temporarily hiring an aircraft with crew, maintenance and insurance included.

Lufthansa, for example, operated 66 aircraft through wet leases during 2025, partly to compensate for delays and reinforce capacity. It has also brought its eight Airbus A380s back into service in response to delays in the delivery of new long-haul aircraft.

Ryanair has also suffered from this situation. The airline explains that during its 2025-2026 financial year it carried 208.4 million passengers despite delays in the delivery of 29 Boeing 737 MAX 8-200 aircraft.

All of this comes at a cost. According to IATA, supply chain problems cost airlines more than 11 billion dollars during 2025. In addition, aircraft leasing prices have increased by between 20% and 30% compared with 2019.

The second major problem: slots

But having an aircraft available is still not enough. You also need a slot. A slot is, simply put, permission for an aircraft to take off or land at a specific airport on a particular date and at a particular time.

Imagine an airport as a car park in central Barcelona at eight o’clock on a Monday morning. You may have a car, fuel and a driver. But if all the spaces are occupied, you cannot get in. Something similar happens at Europe’s major airports.

Heathrow, Amsterdam-Schiphol, Paris-Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt handle more than a thousand operations a day. In 2025, Istanbul led the European network with around 1,491 daily arrivals and departures, followed by Amsterdam, Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt.

See EUROCONTROL data.

 When demand exceeds an airport’s capacity, slots become a scarce and extraordinarily valuable resource.

The 80/20 rule

European regulations apply the principle known as “use it or lose it”. An airline that holds a series of slots must use them at least 80% of the time to retain priority over that series in the equivalent season the following year, except under certain justified circumstances. If it does not, the slots may be reassigned.

See European regulations on airport slots.

This explains why a time slot at Heathrow or Frankfurt has such strategic value. And also why a new airline may have aircraft and money but still face enormous difficulties competing at certain airports.

When scarcity reaches the ticket price

This is where the most direct consequence for consumers appears. In a normal market, when demand increases sharply, companies can increase production. Greater supply and greater competition tend to contain prices.

But European aviation has physical limits. There is a shortage of aircraft. Some are grounded. Leasing them is more expensive. And the most attractive airports have a limited number of slots. Therefore, capacity cannot grow as quickly as demand.

Globally, IATA observed that in 2024 passenger demand had increased by 10.4%, while capacity had grown by only 8.7%. The result was a record load factor of 83.5%. Put more simply: aircraft are flying fuller.

For airlines, this allows them to better protect their margins. For consumers, it means less need to sell the last seats at large discounts.

Scarcity alone does not determine the price of a ticket. Fuel, taxes, the season, the route and competition also play a role. But it helps explain why recovering the number of flights seen before the pandemic does not necessarily mean recovering the prices of previous times.

The European paradox

Europe ultimately faces a contradiction. Demand for mobility continues to grow, but expanding airports and increasing the number of flights comes into conflict with European climate objectives.

Replacing older aircraft with new, more efficient models could reduce fuel consumption and emissions per passenger. But these are precisely the aircraft that take years to arrive. Europe, therefore, wants to fly more, but neither can factories multiply the number of aircraft overnight nor can major airports create runways and slots indefinitely. This is the major bottleneck facing European aviation.

And it has a consequence that goes far beyond airlines: when a good is scarce and demand remains high, whoever controls the available capacity gains power over the market.