Peter Schiff strikes again: why his criticism reveals more about the traditional market than about Bitcoin

Source: CritpoTendencia Original Title: Peter Schiff strikes back: why his criticism reveals more about the traditional market than about Bitcoin Original Link: Peter Schiff, one of the most controversial and consistent voices in his rejection of the crypto world, fired another shot at Bitcoin. This time, he did it with a message intended to provoke a visceral reaction.

Bitcoin no está cayendo porque sea un activo de riesgo, sino porque es un activo falso. El NASDAQ está a menos del 2% de su máximo histórico, sin embargo, Bitcoin está un 28% por debajo de su máximo histórico. Esto muestra que hay más que solo una aversión al riesgo en juego. Esta es una rotación de activos falsos a activos reales.

<<bitcoin is not falling due to being a risky asset, but rather due to being a fake asset. A rotation is occurring from fake assets to real assets>>.

The argument attempts to install a simple narrative: if the Nasdaq is 2% from its all-time high, while Bitcoin remains more than 28% down, then the market is <> and abandoning what he calls <.

But behind the rhetorical blow, there is something much more interesting than the raw data. Schiff's criticism says less about Bitcoin and more about the ideological clash between two generations of financial assets.

Schiff's Attack: Old Discourse, New Context

Schiff never changed his script:

• Bitcoin is a <>.
• It is a bubble sustained by speculation.
• The market will return to <>: gold, commodities, profitable stocks.

However, the comparison raised today serves to understand a deeper tension:

Bitcoin is not competing against the Nasdaq. It is competing against the very idea of what is considered <> in the financial system.

While Schiff interprets the correction as a sign of structural weakness, the reality is that Bitcoin demonstrates something that no tech index can: partial decoupling, its own cycles, and a market behavior that does not respond to the same macro incentives as traditional assets.

The conceptual error: Bitcoin was never a <>

A critical point that Schiff ignores -or chooses to ignore- is that Bitcoin does not operate under the logic of traditional equity.

The Nasdaq reflects:

• Corporate Earnings
• Interest rate expectations
• Institutional flows
• Buybacks
• Business models

Bitcoin, on the other hand, reflects:

• Global Adoption
• Intergenerational liquidity cycles
• Digital savings strategies
• Demand for technological safeguard
• Predictable issuance models
• Monetary narratives in countries with chronic inflation

Although both can rise or fall in similar periods, they do not respond to the same fundamental math.

Comparing percentage drops between Nasdaq and Bitcoin to declare that one is <> and the other is not, is like comparing oil with artificial intelligence: they may move together, but their essence is different.

Bitcoin does not represent a technological risk, but a monetary risk. And that difference makes it an asset that Schiff simply cannot analyze with the financial tools of the 20th century.

What Schiff doesn't say: the <> also works in reverse

The argument of <> is appealing… but incomplete. History shows that:

When Bitcoin returns to its bullish cycles, capital rotates from traditional stocks to BTC, seeking pure asymmetry.

The market has already seen the same pattern three times:

• 2013
• 2017
• 2021

In all, Bitcoin lagged behind stocks for months… until it left all global indices behind by huge margins.

The rotation, then, is not unidirectional. It is cyclical. And it depends on the point in the cycle that Bitcoin is in - something that Schiff never incorporates into his discourse.

Schiff does not criticize Bitcoin, he criticizes what it represents

What really bothers Schiff is not that Bitcoin is falling, it is that Bitcoin challenges his view of the financial system:

• It does not have a central issuer
• It does not depend on banks
• It cannot be devalued by monetary policy
• It is not backed by the State
• It operates outside the regulated circuit that he understands as <>.

Schiff does not attack the 28% drop. He attacks the idea that millions of people choose a non-state asset as a store of value in a world where trust in financial institutions erodes year after year.

Your critique is not macroeconomic. It is philosophical.

Final reflection

Schiff's comment is provocative, but it reveals a larger paradigm clash than a simple comparison with the Nasdaq. Bitcoin does not fit into the mental framework of the traditional financial system, which is why figures like Schiff interpret every correction as proof that <<nunca funcionará=“”>>.

The story, however, shows the opposite: Bitcoin has been declared dead more than 400 times… and yet, it continues to redefine what it means to store value in the digital age.

The real question is not whether Bitcoin is <> or <>. The real question is: how much longer will the old system be able to ignore what Bitcoin is pointing to?<><><><><><><><><><><><><><