The financialization of the economy has created an unstable system, a worrying disconnect between the real and financial sectors, and the incomprehensible paradox of underfunding the economy despite enormous liquidity. Indeed, the financial transition refers to the process of transforming the modern financial system into a more ethical and responsible one, serving the real economy and the prosperity of its people. In concrete terms, this will involve correcting the over-complexity of financial instruments that have no impact on the real economy, reducing the speculation and gambling that dominate financial operations in all markets, returning monetary power to the community, and encouraging a plurality of sound citizen-led self-financing initiatives.

It is clear, therefore, that this transition calls for a paradigm shift that could allow us to move from a fictional finance to a sound, wise, and life-respecting one. Evidently, all informed analysts and observers recognize that finance is not fully playing its role as a driver of the economy, and recurring and destabilizing financial crises are disrupting markets and economic cycles. Many initiatives have emerged to correct the shortcomings and limitations of the current financial system. It is from this perspective that green finance appeared to address neglected ecological and environmental aspects. Islamic finance arose to address the ethical and religious questions ignored by the dominant model. Many other variations have emerged with their own specific rationales, ranging from solidarity finance and colonial finance to ethical finance and functional finance.

The 21st century has witnessed countless shocks and transformations brought about by conflicting lifestyles and the philosophical realities underpinning the planning and organizational models of our economies. We speak of energy transition, ecological transition, and demographic transition, while overlooking the transition of transitions, because finance, in our modern societies, is at the beginning and end of many processes. The new economy movement, so desired by people seeking democracy in the economic sphere, provides an opportunity to re-examine financial governance as a whole and to address the financial exclusion suffered by the majority of citizens.

Discussing the financial transition is, in reality, an invitation to present its practical foundations while outlining its theoretical framework. We will first analyze the role of the state, then that of banks, and finally that of non-financial actors in order to initiate the necessary overhaul to save the planet through an ecosophical approach.

The word finance derives from the Latin *finis*, meaning "end" or "term." Originally, it encompassed all disciplines managing the settlement of real, then contractual, and finally monetary transactions. After the Renaissance, it acquired its current meaning, referring to treasury management, securities, and credit. Dembinski approaches finance as a branch of economics from a functional perspective, with three variations:

- to guarantee the flow of financial operations and transactions;

- to pool savings and organize their availability for investment projects;

- to assess and value the risk and work towards making it profitable.

Unlike companies, which generally practice a well-studied hierarchical financing in the Pecking Order (order of preference in financing), states have other logics and countless instruments to fully play their role in financing the economy.

In the 21st century, many Western theorists believe that the state should play a regulatory role by creating the conditions for the harmonious expression of economic actors while establishing the infrastructure necessary for the common good. In short, it must arbitrate and refrain from interfering, since it must not seek profit (providing non-market goods and services): a confined, disciplined, and dismembered state!

In reality, while we can accept a minimalist role for the state in developed countries, favoring predominantly domestic private capital, it is absurd for developing countries where private capital is largely foreign. In developing countries lacking fundamentals, the state is the primary actor on all fronts to initiate development. The state is all of us, and often the leaders in charge of its operation are unaware of its foundations and realities. Ronald Reagan stated that "governments have a simplistic view of the economy. If it moves, add taxes. If it still moves, impose laws. If it stops moving, give subsidies." This is the classic suicidal triad: taxation, regulation, and subsidies.

Besides the diminished role of the state, underfunding and frequent crises fall under the responsibility of the central bank, which, despite all the levers and instruments at its disposal, has been content to focus solely on price stability, relying on monetarist theory ill-suited to developing countries. Despite occasional interventions regarding liquidity, the central bank controls neither the quantity of credit nor the sectors to which this credit is allocated by commercial banks, in addition to being a minor player in the formation of inflation. This bank crosses the Rubicon of folly when it refuses governments advances and zero-interest loans, preferring to focus on commercial banks that merely purchase government bonds with central bank money. "Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon," said the prophet of monetarism; what a truism!

Finally, there are the financial institutions tasked with driving development by supporting key infrastructure projects. The observation is undeniable: the majority of capital is foreign, repatriating the bulk of profits outside the region. Furthermore, these institutions focus on short-term consumer loans, while development projects require longer maturities. Last but not least, they concentrate on less than 10% of the economy, excluding the vast majority of financing channels, even though this sector, wrongly labeled informal, is dynamic and resilient, contributing up to 50% of GDP.

In light of all these difficulties, one of the fundamental problems addressed by the persistent issue of financial collapse remains trust. An invisible institution and a guarantee of a community's continuity, trust, alongside authority and legitimacy, remains one of the invisible pillars of the state. All financial or banking crises share a common thread: a breakdown of trust that perpetuates a natural, closed cycle that governs economic cycles: Trust-distrust-mistrust-trust.

The financial transition requires simultaneous action at the local level, while keeping the global situation in mind. From the 1929 stock market crash to the dot-com bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis, and more recently in 2008, the contagion or domino effect has been widely observed on a planetary scale. Today, private credit amounts to over $2 trillion, largely unregulated and extremely opaque, with one-third directed towards SSI startups and one-quarter comprised of funds from so-called systemically important banks (whose failures can disrupt the financial system). Despite its dazzling promises, AI represents a financial black hole, with structures mobilizing enormous sums without being publicly traded or presenting profitable business models in the short and medium term. OpenAI raised $120 billion in its latest funding round for investments that, according to profitability analyses, will not be profitable. The delinquency rates and levels of private debt in the USA sufficiently demonstrate a system (pivot with an international reserve currency at 58%) that is exhausted and on the verge of implosion in a world in polycrisis and profound change.

Diagnosing the limitations of the central bank, the state, and financial structures in developing economies like those of the WAEMU countries already offers initial solutions during this transitional period between an old world that is slow to disappear and a new one that is struggling to emerge. It is urgent to reduce speculation, regulate high-potential sectors, and refocus credit on serving the real economy.

This transition will not be effective without a re-evaluation of money in the 21st century: its nature, its governance, and its manifestations. Encouraging pluralism and multiplying monetary circles will be assets for working on the hybridization of resources and the construction of coherent and dynamic hubs.

Far from being a necessity, the financial transition has become a requirement for economic stability and a guarantee for improving the well-being of communities.

Sheikh Oumar Diagne

Geoecosopher