Peter Schiff dropped another hot take on Bitcoin recently. The gold bug's still calling it a "fake asset" - a stance he's doubled down on for years now.
Schiff's never been shy about his skepticism. While BTC believers see digital gold, he sees... well, nothing real. His argument? If you can't hold it, if it's just code and consensus, can you really call it an asset?
The debate rages on. One camp points to Bitcoin's fixed supply and decentralized nature. The other side, led by voices like Schiff, questions its intrinsic value. No dividends, no physical form, no traditional backing.
Worth noting: Schiff's made his fortune in precious metals. His bias? Maybe. But his criticism forces an uncomfortable question - what gives any asset value? Belief? Utility? Scarcity?
The crypto community's heard it all before. Yet Schiff keeps swinging. And honestly? That's what makes markets interesting.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
6 Likes
Reward
6
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ApeWithNoFear
· 16h ago
This guy Schiff always repeats the same rhetoric, it's really annoying haha
Every year he shouts that Bitcoin is a fake asset, but why is gold considered real? Isn't it because he makes money selling gold bars, and now he's afraid of being overshadowed?
Digital gold vs traditional gold, both are essentially consensus games, this is a typical case of survivor bias.
View OriginalReply0
SignatureAnxiety
· 11-30 18:36
Schiff is really obsessed, every time he has the same rhetoric... but to be honest, the logic of "untouchable = worthless" itself is untenable.
So many assets in human society are virtual, why only criticize Bitcoin... could it be that he has been played for suckers?
Ultimately, it's still a game of confidence; if others believe in gold, he believes in gold, then turns around to criticize other people's beliefs, it's a bit...
I do not deny that he has some valid points, but I have always taken gold standard proponents' words with a grain of salt.
View OriginalReply0
RebaseVictim
· 11-30 18:35
This guy Schiff is still talking there, same old rhetoric every time. A gold bug is a gold bug, can't change their nature.
View OriginalReply0
TerraNeverForget
· 11-30 18:31
This guy Schiff really has an obsession, he has to diss Bitcoin every year, selling anxiety here... But to be fair, his logic applies to the US dollar just the same.
Why do we have to trust paper money without real gold and silver? After all, isn’t it all a game of Consensus and confidence?
Of course, this guy who makes money from gold wants to maintain the narrative around gold, it's too real.
Why get hung up on the word "real"? Stocks are just codes, yet they are traded every day.
So the question now is — is he right or are we making money faster?
But he does ask the question well, what does it mean to have value? This question is much more interesting than his answer.
I don't know if Bitcoin is fake or not, but scarcity is real.
Human psychology is probably the biggest asset, no matter what position you hold.
Peter Schiff dropped another hot take on Bitcoin recently. The gold bug's still calling it a "fake asset" - a stance he's doubled down on for years now.
Schiff's never been shy about his skepticism. While BTC believers see digital gold, he sees... well, nothing real. His argument? If you can't hold it, if it's just code and consensus, can you really call it an asset?
The debate rages on. One camp points to Bitcoin's fixed supply and decentralized nature. The other side, led by voices like Schiff, questions its intrinsic value. No dividends, no physical form, no traditional backing.
Worth noting: Schiff's made his fortune in precious metals. His bias? Maybe. But his criticism forces an uncomfortable question - what gives any asset value? Belief? Utility? Scarcity?
The crypto community's heard it all before. Yet Schiff keeps swinging. And honestly? That's what makes markets interesting.