"Gold Godfather" Peter Schiff declares war on CZ: BTC will eventually hit zero, "tokenized gold" is the digital return of money
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
"Gold Godfather" Peter Schiff declares war on CZ: BTC will eventually hit zero, "tokenized gold" is the digital return of money
The ultimate showdown between two monetary beliefs.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsVideo source: CounterParty TV
Translation: Ethan, Odaily Planet Daily
Editor's note: Remember that livestream held three hours before the "October 11 purge"? The same stream, the same host—but this time CZ sat in front of the camera talking about meme coins, the BNB ecosystem, and a decentralized future.
Just two weeks later, the host passed the microphone to the other end—Peter Schiff, economist, die-hard gold advocate, and crypto’s most persistent critic.
One is the "creator of the crypto world," the other the "custodian of traditional finance"; one writes code and whitepapers, the other defends the gold standard and hard currency. If CZ represents "crypto idealism," then Schiff embodies "monetary realism." At the start of the show, he joked about appearing on camera in a polo shirt and shorts, then delivered a series of sharp arguments that left the crypto community speechless:
-
"You can divide nothing into a thousand parts, but it's still nothing."
-
"Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; its entire worth comes from speculation."
-
"Stablecoins are pegged to the dollar, but the dollar itself isn't stable."
Now, this elder statesman of economics, hailed as the "Godfather of Gold," is preparing for an official showdown with CZ—the debate topic being "Bitcoin vs Tokenized Gold" (CZ accepted the invitation, and the debate is tentatively scheduled for early December during Binance Blockchain Week). He revealed that the core of the debate will center on the three functions of money: "Which asset better fulfills the roles of medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value?" In Schiff’s view, Bitcoin is a speculator’s illusion, while "tokenized gold" is the digital return of money; for CZ, Bitcoin is the foundational consensus of decentralization, a "self-correction of humanity against power."
Thus, this interview is not merely a conversation, but more like a prelude to a clash between two eras, two beliefs, and two monetary philosophies. Below is the full transcript, translated by Odaily Planet Daily, with some edits for readability.
Original transcript:
Host: I've watched many of your interviews—from 2007 when you warned of crisis and the hosts laughed, to when gold was at $1,200 and you insisted it would hit $5,000 and argued fiercely with the host. Those predictions were ultimately proven right. Let me start here: what do you think is the biggest misconception about gold within the crypto community?
Peter Schiff: Many misunderstand gold because they want to defend Bitcoin. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value—it’s not a material you can manufacture things from, nor a consumable good. It’s just a digital symbol you can pass to someone else, who in turn can’t do anything with it except pass it along again.
So they naturally lump gold into the same category, calling it just a “useless rock” whose value exists only because people “believe it has value.” From there, they conclude: if gold can be priced on belief, so can Bitcoin.
But they ignore the crucial point: gold *does* have intrinsic value—and very high value at that. This is precisely why it became money in the first place—it’s a scarce and valuable physical commodity. Gold outperforms other goods as long-term money due to a unique set of properties: divisibility, fungibility, durability, portability. Bitcoin mimics these traits, but misses the most essential one—actual value.
Without that, everything else is meaningless. You can slice “nothing” into infinite pieces, but it remains “nothing.” Gold can be divided because it is inherently valuable matter.
From a chemical perspective, gold is one of Earth’s most useful metals. It isn’t used more widely in industry simply because it’s too expensive and too scarce—that’s exactly what gives it value. Gold is used across many fields: most visibly in jewelry, though other metals can make ornaments—yet people prefer gold. Beyond that, it’s applied in electronics, aerospace, medicine, dentistry, and more.
Another critical use is as money. Gold serves as a store of value because it doesn’t corrode or wear out. Bury a gold coin for five hundred years, dig it up, and it shines as new, with no loss of value. This means wealth stored in gold can endure across time and remain usable in the future.
Bitcoin is nothing like this. No one needs Bitcoin today, and no one will in the future. It cannot store value because it lacks any inherent value to store. It has some technical innovations, yes—but those are just features. There are now thousands of cryptocurrencies, each claiming to be “unique,” yet none possess real utility or intrinsic value. And new coins can keep being issued, so even the supposed “scarcity” is gone.
The entire cryptocurrency market is, at its core, a massive bubble. Early entrants made money—they bought early, cashed out at peak prices. Their profits came directly from the losses of later participants. That’s how it works: early buyers get rich, latecomers get stuck holding the bag.
Host: You seem to understand Bitcoin’s ideology well. But conversely, do you reflect on your 2017 prediction that it would go to zero as a misjudgment?
Peter Schiff: I still believe Bitcoin will eventually go to zero, so I don’t think I was “wrong.” But I admit I underestimated public gullibility and the marketing genius of Bitcoin promoters.
Early Bitcoin adopters were extremely successful marketers—they built a compelling narrative that made people willingly buy what they wanted to sell. It’s essentially a massive “pump and dump” scheme. The earliest holders—the so-called “OGs” or “whales”—amassed huge amounts of Bitcoin, created a market from nothing, convinced the masses it had value, drove up the price, and exited at the top.
In my view, the past few years’ price action has simply been the continuation of that exit process. Especially after Bitcoin spot ETFs launched and Trump won the election, I believe the crypto industry actively helped push Trump’s victory, partly to continue “pumping” and create even larger exit opportunities for early capital.
Yes, many made money during that wave. But that’s also why Bitcoin’s price has since stagnated. After briefly surpassing $100,000, it’s been stuck sideways, failing to reach new highs.
If measured in gold, Bitcoin has already fallen about 30%—the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio dropped from 1:26 to 1:8. From gold’s perspective, Bitcoin has long been in a bear market.
Host: I notice you consistently use “gold pricing” to evaluate markets—a consistency worth praising. Let’s shift direction: instead of focusing on Bitcoin today, could you explain to younger viewers why gold has posted its best performance since 1979? What exactly happened?
Peter Schiff: If most of your listeners are from the crypto world, my advice is simple: go buy some gold and silver.
I run a company called Schiff Gold—we even accept Bitcoin payments, though we use BitPay to convert Bitcoin into dollars before purchasing gold or silver. As for why gold has performed so strongly this year, I believe we’re entering a phase similar to the 1970s—not just stagflation, but a global reset of the monetary system.
In the early 1970s, before Nixon severed the dollar’s link to gold, the dollar effectively represented gold—not only “backed by gold,” but redeemable for gold. Foreign central banks held dollars essentially as gold withdrawal slips. But in 1971, the U.S. unilaterally defaulted, telling other nations: “You can no longer exchange your dollars for gold.” This meant the dollar was no longer tied to gold, leaving only printed paper. The result? The dollar plummeted against major currencies—by roughly two-thirds. Against gold, the drop was far steeper: gold surged from $35 to $850 by 1980.
The same occurred with oil. Prices jumped from $3 to $40 per barrel. Oil didn’t become more valuable—it was the dollar losing value. Back then, the U.S. blamed OPEC for “price gouging,” but the real reason was clear: we paid with “paper,” not “gold.” When you pay with paper, others demand more of it.
I believe today’s situation is like the “second phase” of that transformation. This time, the world isn’t abandoning gold—it’s abandoning the dollar. For decades, the global economy relied on the dollar system. But now, central banks are quietly de-dollarizing, replacing dollars with gold as reserve assets. This signals a return to a gold-centered reserve system. Not necessarily a strict “gold standard,” but nations will hold more gold and rely less on the dollar, euro, or pound.
For the U.S., this marks a historic turning point. It means America can no longer overspend as before—no longer print money to buy what it hasn’t produced, or sustain consumption through debt. Going forward, Americans’ cost of living will rise sharply, borrowing costs will soar. Asset prices—especially stocks and real estate—will fall in real terms when measured in gold. Since 1999, the Dow Jones may appear to have quadrupled in dollar terms, but in gold terms, it’s actually down over 70%. That’s the true measure of purchasing power.
I believe this trend won’t stop—it will accelerate. The world is moving from the “dollar standard” back to the “gold standard.”
Host: Your core prediction is that the coming crisis will “make 2008 look trivial,” even like “a Sunday school picnic.” Putting aside metaphors, what does this mean in practical terms? How will it unfold? What warning signs should we watch?
Peter Schiff: The 2008 crisis was fundamentally a “debt crisis”—it erupted from the subprime mortgage market and spread to institutions holding or insuring those mortgages. The U.S. government temporarily suppressed the shock through bailouts and stimulus. That prevented immediate systemic collapse. Strictly speaking, from a longer-term view, if they’d done nothing and allowed a deeper cleansing, America’s economy might be healthier today. But they chose another path—kicking the can further.
This time is different—this is a crisis the government can no longer rescue.
I’m not predicting a collapse in mortgages or credit markets—I’m forecasting a crisis at the level of U.S. Treasury debt: a true sovereign debt crisis. This isn’t about markets doubting whether a highly leveraged homeowner can repay a floating-rate loan. It’s about the world beginning to question—can the U.S. government repay its debts? My concern isn’t just “nominal default” (though that’s not impossible—in some ways, outright default might even be preferable to what I expect). The real risk is: when debt matures, how much will the dollars you receive actually be worth?
If the only way to repay is printing money—and that’s exactly what we’re doing—creditors will panic. Look at what Trump is advocating: cutting interest rates amid high inflation. What does that mean? We’ll generate even more inflation. When interest rates stay below inflation for long, lenders aren’t compensated, triggering systemic selling of U.S. Treasuries. Once global investors stop buying and holding U.S. debt and the dollar, this isn’t just a sovereign debt crisis—it’s a currency crisis, a higher-level financial system breakdown.
Because this time, the explosion will come from the so-called “risk-free asset” itself. Its collapse will trigger widespread tremors across credit markets. Then, the U.S. government won’t be able to rescue anyone; the Fed won’t be able to do in 2008-style interventions, using dollars or Treasuries to “swap out” private-sector bad debt. TARP worked by substituting U.S. government debt for private-sector debt—on the condition that markets still trusted U.S. Treasuries. Now, that trust is fading.
In a scenario of plunging dollar and soaring inflation, what can the government do? It can’t just print and spend more—that would pour gasoline on fire, accelerating the dollar’s fall and pushing long-term rates even higher. The old remedies are now useless. We’re trapped in a no-win situation. The only real solution—the path governments have refused for decades—is too painful. But precisely because it’s been delayed so long, facing it now will hurt even more.
Host: If the crisis can’t be rescued, describe specifically: suppose it erupts one year from today (October 22, 2025)—how would it begin? What would be the first breaking point?
Peter Schiff: First, look at gold. Last week, gold nearly hit $4,400 before quickly retreating to near $4,000. But regardless, $4,000 is double the price from two years ago. Historically, in 1980, when the world abandoned the dollar and lost faith in the U.S., how did Paul Volcker restore confidence? He raised short-term rates to 20%. It was a message to dollar holders: “Don’t want dollars? We’ll pay you 20% interest.” Inflation peaked at 10%-12%, so a 20% return was enough to lure capital back.
Meanwhile, Reagan implemented market reforms and tax cuts, completely reversing the prior era of “big government, low efficiency, heavy intervention” under Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, and Nixon—restoring confidence in the dollar. Today, these tools are ineffective. First, Trump is not Reagan; Powell is not Volcker—even if Volcker were alive, he couldn’t do it now. Because today’s debt scale makes such rates unaffordable.
In 1980, U.S. national debt was under $1 trillion, mostly long-term fixed-rate debt. Even with 20% short-term rates, the fiscal impact was limited. Today is entirely different: about one-third of Treasury debt matures within a year, total debt exceeds $38 trillion, and average duration is only four to five years (I forget the exact number, but it’s short). If rates hit 10%, annual interest payments would quickly reach $4 trillion—nearly impossible to cover. We collect only about $5 trillion in taxes annually. And if short-term rates truly hit 10%, the economy would plunge into deep recession, businesses would fail en masse, unemployment would spike, deficits would explode, and tax revenues would collapse.
The conclusion: we can’t fight inflation by raising rates—because the cure would kill the patient. Since we can’t “heal” via rate hikes, we’ll be dragged down by inflation, risking hyperinflation and a currency crisis.
Is there a way to avoid the worst outcome? Default (or debt restructuring). The U.S. government could say: “We borrowed $40 trillion, can’t repay it all—so we’ll pay 25 cents on the dollar, which we might afford.”
We also need higher rates, which is why debt must be restructured: the root problem is decades of artificially low rates. Now the Fed and Trump want to cut rates, but we actually need higher rates.
Trump complains about hollowed-out manufacturing and massive trade deficits. To fix this, we need higher rates—to reduce consumption, boost savings, and use savings to build factories. Without savings, you can’t build factories; without factories, you keep importing. We could do this before because others wanted our dollars (reserve currency). Once the dollar loses that status, the world won’t trade real goods for our “paper.” We’ll have to produce ourselves—but we’ve lost capacity, infrastructure, supply chains, skilled workers. The advantages America once had are gone.
That’s what it looks like in reality.
Host: Fairly speaking, “Bitcoin will fail” hasn’t been proven wrong yet—but “bearish on Bitcoin” has been spectacularly wrong over the past decade, hasn’t it?
Peter Schiff: “Being right about Bitcoin” and “making money from Bitcoin” are two completely different things. I admit the price rose significantly—that’s undeniable. But if it eventually goes to zero, that proves my judgment about its essence was correct: it’s a massive Ponzi scheme. Yes, I could have bought early and sold high, making substantial profits. Many did exactly that. They didn’t see Bitcoin’s true value or long-term outlook clearly—they just profited as more people made the same mistake, willing to buy at higher prices.
The problem is most people don’t exit at the right time. Someone might buy at $5,000, see their position grow twentyfold, and feel “right.” But when the price drops back to $1,000, 80% of gains vanish—were they “right” or “wrong”? If those profits were never realized, they effectively never existed. In this sense, I still believe my fundamental judgment about Bitcoin—that it ultimately fails to deliver on its promises—is correct.
Of course, I admit I “erred” by not leveraging this mania to profit. I could have bought early and cheap, sold at multiple peaks, and made a fortune. Over the past three to four years, even this year, my returns from other investments weren’t bad—but if I’d bought Bitcoin, they’d have been astonishing. I just didn’t do it.
Hindsight says I “should have.” Yet still, I believe far more people will lose money on Bitcoin than make it. Especially investors entering now—they’re likely to suffer badly.
Host: Even if I’m “wrong” once, if it brings thousandfold or ten-thousandfold returns, I’d still take the bet. But you’ve long said “it can’t go much higher.” Suppose your forecast is right—you win, gold hits $10,000, $15,000, even $20,000—what would the world look like then? How should ordinary people respond? Should they go all-in on gold, or diversify? If not dollars, what should they hold?
Peter Schiff: For people like me, older with significant assets, I recommend holding some gold—say, a cap of 5%, 10%, or 20%. Beyond that, I like dividend-paying stocks. I own many gold stocks myself, but also numerous non-gold foreign equities, which I believe offer real, inflation-adjusted returns, helping U.S. investors maintain living standards amid the coming dollar collapse.
For younger people with little savings but wanting to prepare, I suggest holding physical silver and gold—silver is better, easier to trade, smaller unit value. For example, allocate $5,000 to $10,000 to buy silver coins—good for storing value and usable in extreme scenarios.
Also, don’t stockpile only “this week’s essentials.” If space allows, hoard more non-perishable necessities—items you’ll definitely use in six months, a year, two years. Buy them now because they’ll be pricier later. You’re locking in prices, fighting inflation. Example: if toothpaste is $5 now, $10 next year, buying extra now means when you use it later, your “toothpaste investment” earned 100% (since you’d use it anyway). Instead of keeping cash in a bank to buy more expensive toothpaste later, buy it now.
Another risk is price controls. When the dollar truly crashes and prices surge, governments may impose price caps—as Nixon did—trying to “hold prices down.” The result is often shortages: when legal prices fall below cost, sellers stop supplying. You go to supermarkets or pharmacies, shelves are empty—even toothpaste. Then black markets emerge, charging higher prices and carrying jail risks; black markets won’t accept cards, preferring silver coins. Stockpiling helps you avoid black markets and reduces shocks. Remember how people couldn’t find toilet paper during COVID? With price controls, it’d be worse.
Even without price controls, dollar depreciation drives prices upward; but in silver terms, many goods become “cheaper.” You can buy more real goods with less silver. Many mistakenly think Bitcoin can do the same, but I expect the opposite: Bitcoin will depreciate against the dollar. When you try to buy things with Bitcoin, you’ll find yourself spending more and more BTC, as prices quoted in Bitcoin rise faster than dollar-denominated prices.
Host: Your “toothpaste investment theory” sounds like a legendary sales pitch in the crypto world. Honestly, I’ve watched many of your old interviews lately and gained new respect. But in crypto circles, you’re often portrayed as the “angry dad who rants all day.” I’m not a “Bitcoin maximalist,” but I am a “crypto enthusiast.” One scene sticks with me: around 2006, you predicted the financial crisis on Fox, and everyone laughed—the host, guests, audience—all roared. I wonder: before 2008, how could so many smart people collectively miss the crisis? So many institutions, experts—why did almost no one see it coming?
Peter Schiff: Classic groupthink. When everyone thinks the same way, they instinctively reject any challenge to their beliefs. I call it “cognitive dissonance”: they build mental walls; nothing I say gets through, because accepting it would shatter their worldview, career paths, and利益 structures. No one wants to admit I was right.
And since no one else speaks up—only I do—they easily conclude: how could this guy from a small firm be right while Harvard economists, the Fed, Wall Street giants, and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers all be wrong? So they’d rather believe I’m wrong.
But now in the Bitcoin community, I see the same psychology: belief in Bitcoin has become part of identity, all-in, unwilling to hear criticism, every opposing view gets “bounced back.” So when I say “Bitcoin will collapse,” they laugh just like those people laughed when I said “banks will fail, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will go bankrupt”—“Impossible.” All I can say is: that’s exactly what will happen.
Host: Fairly speaking, you started warning about crisis in 2006, and it hit two years later; but your opposition to Bitcoin has lasted over a decade.
Peter Schiff: Actually, I began warning about financial system risks as early as 2002 or 2003. I already saw the Fed pushing rates too low, spotted problems brewing in real estate and mortgage markets. By 2006, I spoke more frequently, intensely, and appeared more on media, so 2006 or 2007 is what most remember. But yes, the Bitcoin bubble has lasted longer than the housing bubble. I’ve criticized Bitcoin longer than I ever criticized subprime or housing. Precisely because its lifespan has been artificially extended, many assume: “This time you must be wrong? It should’ve collapsed by now.”
I believe it’s come close to “breaking” several times. Crypto succeeded brilliantly by bringing in Wall Street—spot/ETFs, MicroStrategy’s “financial leverage + funding combo,” various structured leverage—all extending the rally. Plus, they aggressively pulled Trump and his family “into the cult,” attaching “crypto czars” and White House influence, fueling this “pump-and-dump pyramid” with more oxygen.
But this can’t last forever. It will peak and collapse. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; its entire worth comes from speculation, requiring endless new buyers willing to pay higher prices. Once new buyers dry up, the mechanism collapses. So they invented the “HODL” (hold) doctrine. That narrative was crafted by early large holders—they want to sell, but need others not to sell, while constantly attracting new entrants. Eventually, the structure will break. In fact, the collapse may already be underway.
Look at some crypto-related stocks: I mentioned today, Gemini, the Winklevoss brothers’ exchange, listed last month and has since dropped about 60% from its intraday high; Trump’s media company DJT has fallen 70% since October. Then there’s that Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas, their so-called “Nakamoto” project—I said at the time it was a pyramid or Ponzi. It launched at $30, now trades at $0.70.
This is the hallmark of a bubble: everything seems sustainable, but the collapse has already begun.
Host: Have you considered that over the past decade, you’ve mentioned “Bitcoin” more on shows and social media than anyone else? In a way, aren’t you also “promoting it”?
Peter Schiff: It’s still alive, boasting “trillions in market cap.” Look at how deeply financial media has been infiltrated—tune into CNBC, nearly every screen screams crypto content. I suggest they rename themselves “Crypto News” or “Bitcoin Channel.”
Host: Fairly speaking, it’s been one of the best-performing assets of the past decade—media has a duty to inform audiences, doesn’t it?
Peter Schiff: When they lose all their money, viewers might sue the media. See who buys ads, who sponsors—crypto projects flood commercial slots. Platforms barely allow negative talk about Bitcoin.
Host: But you speak out almost daily, and you’ve often appeared on CNBC.
Peter Schiff: I hardly get invited anymore. They stopped asking, largely because I’m negative on Bitcoin. Sponsors say: we pay for ads, don’t let Peter Schiff come on and ruin it.
Host: People in the Bitcoin circle actually “welcome” you on shows—they need an antagonist to strengthen their resolve. Okay, final big question: you predicted the 2008 crisis—how did you act that year? Is there a similar playbook now?
Peter Schiff: In 2008, I got hammered overall. The only profit came from my 2007 “short subprime” trade, which I cashed out before the crisis. But I held large positions in gold stocks and foreign equities, which fell harder than the broader U.S. market in 2008.
However, in 2009, they rebounded more violently, and I recovered most losses (excluding the short trade). Where I did well was positioning for the post-crisis dollar crisis. Read my first book, *Crash Proof* (How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse)—the logic is clear: after the financial crisis, mortgage and real estate collapse, bank failures, Fannie/Freddie issues, the government will print massively (later called QE). I predicted this would trigger a dollar and bond market crisis, sending gold soaring. Factually, I was right on direction, wrong on timing. Gold did hit $1,900, then retreated; the dollar initially fell, then rose. The Fed successfully inflated the bubble further—stocks, real estate, bonds, even crypto assets—all turned bubbly. I call it the “everything bubble.”
Later, in *The Real Crash* (How to Survive and Prosper from the Coming Depression in the United States), I stressed: 2008 wasn’t “the crash I feared.” The real crash is in the dollar and bonds. It hasn’t come, but I believe it’s near. Gold’s renewed strength is the alarm. Like the 2007 subprime blow-up signal—everyone said “contained,” then the whole world got sucked in. Today, many see gold rising as just a “thematic stock” or “momentum play,” missing the deeper meaning.
To me, it’s signaling: the world is losing faith in the dollar. The dollar crisis that should’ve erupted years ago is now approaching.
Host: You just said “everything bubble”—is gold itself now in a bubble?
Peter Schiff: No. It’s risen fast recently—from $3,500, $3,600 to $4,400, then quickly pulled back, with single-day drops over 6.5%. But it’s far from a “bubble.”
Take my company SchiffGold as an example: over the past two years, our sales haven’t been high. Though recent weeks improved, from $2,000 to $4,000 gold, we didn’t see a “gold rush.” Our busiest year was 2020 during the pandemic—people panicked, rushed to buy gold. The past two years, people weren’t afraid; they preferred buying Bitcoin, tech stocks.
The real big buyers now are central banks. They’re not speculators planning to buy low and sell high. They’re acquiring gold as long-term reserves because their confidence in the dollar is waning. Institutionally, pension funds, endowments, hedge funds allocate only about 2% to gold and related stocks (including miners), far below historical averages.
If this is a bubble, bubbles should be everywhere—but reality is the opposite. Those “queueing to buy gold” photos on social media? I suspect many are actually lining up to sell jewelry for cash. During gold’s rise, we’ve had many long-term clients sell at peaks. This looks more like rational exits, not mass euphoria.
Last year to now, gold ETFs and gold miner ETFs have seen continuous net outflows. In gold markets, fear outweighs greed; in Bitcoin markets, I see almost pure greed—constant shouts of “must hit millions,” classic “all-in narrative”: don’t buy, and you’ll stay poor. On the gold side, no such collective delusion exists.
Host: Do you think the blockchain industry has produced anything “positive”? Do you like stablecoins? Smart contracts? For instance, prediction markets like Polymarket—do you see value?
Peter Schiff: A few years ago, I made an Ordinals NFT on Bitcoin with a friend, called “Golden Triumph”—depicting a hand raising a gold bar, almost like a joke “in Bitcoin’s face”: ultimate victory belongs to gold. The NFT included a signed physical print. The original oil painting found no buyers, but the prints sold out, later resold on Magic Eden.
Overall, I’m skeptical of the NFT craze. Its fate matched my expectations—brief boom, rapid fade. Over a decade ago, people told me “blockchain will change everything,” but to this day, it’s had almost no tangible impact on my life. I don’t put my car title or house deed on-chain, nor trade stocks via blockchain.
You mention examples like Polymarket—I don’t see why blockchain is necessary. When the internet emerged, it instantly changed my life—I didn’t need to buy its stock to use its products; blockchain/Bitcoin has changed almost nothing in my daily routine.
Ironically, the asset best suited for tokenization is gold. Critics mock gold: “Will you scrape shavings off a gold bar to buy coffee?” But humanity thrived under the gold standard for millennia without today’s tech. Now with blockchain, it’s even simpler: store gold in custodians, tokenize ownership, transfer gold-backed tokens in wallets—blockchain enables instant, transparent, low-cost, verifiable transactions.
As for stablecoins: they’re pegged to the dollar, which isn’t stable—long-term depreciation; and the interest goes to issuers, not token holders. It’s the worst way to “hold dollars”: you carry a non-yielding token tied to a depreciating currency. Better to tokenize gold, anchoring to gold’s “stability.” It can deliver what Bitcoin promises but fails: medium of exchange, unit of account, store of value.
I’ll likely launch my own gold token: we’re building a platform for SchiffGold—users buy gold via a mobile app, physical gold is stored under our custody, owned by users; they can transfer gold ownership within the app for payments, redeem physical gold, or later redeem on-chain tokens. We also plan a debit card backed by silver and gold—when you swipe $10, the system sells equivalent gold to settle. Ideally, the recipient also accepts gold, enabling direct gold settlement.
Some question “counterparty risk.” My view: capitalism is full of counterparty relationships—insurance, custody work the same. Brinks has operated for over 160 years, specializing in gold custody, never lost a gram—brand and reputation built over time. You can’t dismiss gold because counterparties exist.
Whether this is “blockchain/DeFi/RWA”—it can be on-chain, but doesn’t have to be. I care more about gold’s intrinsic value; tokens are just a convenient vehicle. I hope it’s multi-chain compatible, cross-chain transferable—users pay gas fees on respective chains; but internal transfers among SchiffGold users need no chain, no extra fees.
Similar products exist—like Tether Gold by Tether. By the way, I’ve held a premium domain related to “gold” for years, once thought Tether would buy it, but they didn’t—now visiting that domain redirects straight to SchiffGold.
Host: Do you still hold any Bitcoin? Including proceeds from that earlier Ordinals NFT sale?
Peter Schiff: I didn’t keep the proceeds from the Ordinals sale. But I do have a tiny bit of Bitcoin—about one-third of a BTC in an old wallet, though I haven’t accessed it in years, so it’s effectively gone. Besides that, I created a sort of “joke project” called “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve.” That started when Trump announced a “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve,” so I followed suit.
I made the wallet address public—initially used a Coinbase address, then later bought a cold wallet so everyone could see the transactions, transferring that “strategic reserve” into it. Technically, I do have a “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve” and a “small crypto stash,” like the U.S. government. But the key point: I never spent a dollar of my own money; those coins were all donated. I’ve promised—never to touch them. Last I checked, it held about $6,000–$7,000 in Bitcoin and a few hundred dollars in other altcoins, mostly Solana-type coins.
In short, I’ve never used my own funds to buy even a fraction of Bitcoin. Even the “lost” batch was all gifted. It started when Anthony Pompliano (@APompliano) offered to send me $100 in Bitcoin, but I told him I had no wallet, so he couldn’t send it.
Slightly earlier, after debating Erik Voorhees (@ErikVoorhees) on Bitcoin, we had dinner together. He and a friend installed a wallet on my phone (something like Crypto.com), then sent about $100 in Bitcoin as a demo. I immediately sent back $50, so I left the restaurant with $50 in Bitcoin in my wallet.
They gave me a PIN, but no seed phrase, no password. So I relied on that PIN for years. Later, someone at an event paid for my book in Ethereum or Bitcoin, slowly growing my balance to a few hundred dollars. Then I shared the address with Pompliano asking him to send some, he didn’t, but others gradually sent coins, totaling about one-third of a Bitcoin. Back then, Bitcoin was around $10,000, later rose much higher.
Then one morning I woke up and the PIN didn’t work. I said, “I didn’t forget the password—the wallet forgot my password,” and people laughed. But the truth—I never knew the password, only the PIN.
I contacted Erik Voorhees and the wallet company, but they couldn’t find my account. No seed phrase, no password, nothing. Later, the wallet company updated the app, requiring password re-entry, and my PIN failed. So those coins became permanently inaccessible.
To be clear: that Bitcoin was all donated; including the “strategic reserve” I now have, none ever cost me money. I won’t touch them—just leave them there—let it rise or fall, I’ll sink with the ship.
Host: That tiny bit of Bitcoin you received five or six years ago, now inaccessible, has outperformed the gold you’ve held for over thirty years.
Peter Schiff: Roughly, yes. That Bitcoin appreciated about tenfold since I got it. But when I bought gold, it was under $300, now over $4,000—also more than tenfold.
Of course, if all the money I invested in gold and gold stocks over the past twenty years had instead gone entirely into Bitcoin early on—I’d probably be a “multi-billionaire” today. But that assumes I never sold. In reality, I couldn’t do that. Given my investment temperament, I’d surely have sold in stages during the rise.
I know many who made fortunes on Bitcoin, now very wealthy, some even richer than me. But I believe they’ll eventually give back a significant portion of those gains.
Some are more rational, cashing out substantial profits at peaks—that’s my advice to any holder: even if not fully exiting, take partial profits. Sell part, convert to other assets. Spend some, enjoy the rewards; use part to buy gold, silver, real estate, or quality dividend stocks.
Don’t bet your entire net worth on a fantasy—“Bitcoin will surely hit one million, even ten million.” Wake up one day to find it zero, and the feeling will be awful. You can’t go back and redo it. Young people are okay—they have a lifetime to recover; but for older people, much of life is behind them—not enough time to restart.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
