During the age of exploration, there was a number of countries that were on the gold standard and others on the silver standard.  The gold standard countries tended to be western European and those on the silver standard were mostly Asian.  With gold having a higher S2F compared to silver this seemed to be a nice model of what a BTC vs fiat future could look like.  In that era those on the gold standard ended up being the "winners" by accumulating gold in return for ever devaluing silver.  India in particular had a net loss of gold from 1600-1900's (based on my reading of Darlyrimple, Picketty and Ferguson).  Prior to European (particularly British) trading they had much more reserves than any European country, but this differential in gold vs. silver standard seems to have allowed that advantage to reverse.

I'm thinking a similar scenario plays out in the future.  Countries quicker to adopt and maintain a fixed supply standard (like BTC) could gather net inflows compared to devaluing currencies/fiat.  I don't think that idea is new- @Raoul Pal talks about the game theory of the whole thing.  What might be interesting is to see how the gold/silver rotation played out to see how the corollary fiat/BTC rotation may happen.  How long did it take? Why didn't the silver reserve countries change over to gold?  What happened to individuals who individually invested in gold vs. silver?  Did companies that went from a silver reserve(fiat) to gold reserve (BTC) eat up their competition with their additional purchasing power?  It seems like there could be much to learn from that not so distant history...