Video Source: CounterParty TV

Translation: Ethan, Odaily Planet Daily

Editor's Note: Do you remember the live broadcast that took place three hours before the "1011 Great Purge"? The same studio, the same host, but sitting in front of the camera, CZ was discussing meme coins, the BNB ecosystem, and a decentralized future.

Just two weeks later, the host handed the microphone to the other end—Peter Schiff, an economist, a staunch believer in gold, and one of the most stubborn critics in the crypto space.

One is the "creator of the crypto world," and the other is the "gravekeeper of traditional finance"; one writes code and white papers, while the other adheres to the gold standard and hard currency. If CZ represents "crypto idealism," then Schiff embodies "monetary realism." He jokingly remarked at the beginning of the program that he was "wearing a polo shirt and shorts on the show," but then delivered a series of sharp assertions that left the crypto community in silence:

• "You can divide nothing into a thousand pieces, but it is still nothing."
• "Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; its entire value comes from speculation."
• "Stablecoins are pegged to the dollar, and the dollar itself is unstable."

Now, this so-called "Godfather of Gold," the old-school economist, is preparing for a formal debate with CZ—the topic is "Bitcoin vs Tokenized Gold" (CZ responded after being invited, and the two are tentatively scheduled to debate during Binance Blockchain Week in early December). He revealed that the core of this debate will revolve around the three main functions of money: "Which asset better satisfies the roles of a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value?" In Schiff's view, Bitcoin is an illusion for speculators, while "tokenized gold" represents the digital return of money; for CZ, Bitcoin is the underlying consensus of decentralized belief, a "self-correction of humanity against power."

Thus, this interview is not just a conversation but more like a "prelude to a debate" between two eras, two beliefs, and two monetary views. Below is the original content of the interview, translated by Odaily Planet Daily, with some content omitted for smoother reading.

The original text is as follows:

Host: I have watched many of your interviews, such as when you warned of the crisis in 2007 while the host was laughing, and when you insisted on a bullish outlook of $5,000 for gold when it was priced at $1,200, engaging in heated debates with the host. These predictions have ultimately been proven correct. I want to start from here: what do you think is the biggest misunderstanding the crypto community has about gold?

Peter Schiff: Many people misunderstand gold because they want to defend Bitcoin. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value—it is not a raw material that can be used to make things, nor is it a consumable item. It is just a digital symbol that you can transfer to someone else, and when they receive it, they can do nothing with it either, except pass it on to the next person.

So they naively categorize gold in the same way, thinking of it as just a "useless rock," with value only because people "believe it has value." They conclude that since gold can be priced "by belief," Bitcoin can too.

But they overlook the most critical point: gold does have intrinsic value, and it is very high. This is precisely why it can serve as money—it is a scarce and precious physical commodity. Gold's superiority over other commodities, allowing it to be used as money for a long time, is due to its unique properties: it is divisible, fungible, durable, and portable. Bitcoin does mimic these properties of gold, but it lacks the most essential aspect—actual value.

Without this, everything else becomes empty talk. You can divide "nothing" into countless small pieces, but it is still "nothing." Gold can be divided because it is a valuable substance.

From a chemical perspective, gold is one of the most useful metals on Earth. It is not used more widely in industry because it is too expensive and too scarce—this precisely constitutes its value. Gold is used in many fields: the most obvious is jewelry, although you can make ornaments from other metals, people prefer gold. Additionally, it is used in electronics, aerospace, medical, and dental industries.

Another important use is as money. Gold can serve as a store of value because it does not corrode or wear out. If you bury a gold coin for five hundred years and dig it up, it will still shine as new, with no loss of value. This means gold can store wealth across time and still be usable in the future.

Bitcoin, however, is not like this. Today, no one "needs" Bitcoin, and they won't in the future. It cannot store value because it has no value to be stored. It does have some technological innovations, but those are merely technical features. There are now thousands of cryptocurrencies, each claiming to be "unique," but none have real utility or intrinsic value. Moreover, new coins can continue to be issued, so even the so-called "scarcity" no longer exists.

The entire cryptocurrency market is essentially a massive bubble. The early entrants made money—they held coins early on and cashed out at high prices during the bubble's expansion. Those profits ultimately came from the losses of later participants. This is its operating mechanism: early entrants get rich, and later ones take over.

Host: You seem to understand the concept of Bitcoin quite well. But looking back, do you reflect on your prediction of its "zeroing out" in 2017 as a misjudgment?

Peter Schiff: I still believe that Bitcoin will ultimately go to zero, so I don't think I "misjudged." But I admit that I underestimated the public's gullibility and the marketing prowess of Bitcoin promoters.

The early participants in Bitcoin were extremely successful in market promotion—they built an engaging "narrative" that made people willingly buy what they wanted to sell. You could say this is a massive "pump and dump" game. Those early holders—the so-called "OGs" or "whales"—held large amounts of Bitcoin, creating a market from nothing, convincing the public that this thing had value, thus driving up the price so they could cash out at high levels.

In my view, the market trends of the past few years are essentially a continuation of this selling process. Especially after the listing of Bitcoin spot ETFs and Trump's election victory, I believe the crypto industry even actively participated in promoting Trump's victory during that time, one of the underlying purposes being to continue the "pump" and create greater exit space for early investors.

Indeed, many people made money during that wave. But that is precisely why Bitcoin's price has stagnated now. After surging above $100,000, it has remained flat for a long time, with no new highs.

If priced in gold, Bitcoin has actually dropped by about 30%—the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio has fallen from 1:26 to 1:8. From the perspective of gold, it has already entered a bear market.

Host: I notice you consistently use "gold pricing" to measure the market, which is indeed commendable. Let's change direction; today, let's not talk much about Bitcoin, but could you explain to young viewers why gold has achieved its best performance this year since 1979? What exactly has happened?

Peter Schiff: If your audience mostly comes from the crypto space, my advice is simple: go buy some gold and silver.

I have my own company—called Schiff Gold, and we even support Bitcoin payments, but it is converted into dollars through BitPay before being used to purchase gold or silver. As for why gold has performed so strongly this year, I believe we are in a phase similar to the 1970s—not just stagflation, but a "reset" of the global monetary system.

In the early 1970s, before Nixon announced the dollar's departure from the gold standard, the dollar was essentially a representation of gold—not only "backed by gold" but also "directly redeemable for gold." At that time, the dollars held by central banks were essentially gold delivery receipts. But in 1971, the U.S. unilaterally "defaulted," telling other countries: "You can no longer redeem dollars for gold." This meant the dollar was no longer linked to gold, leaving only printed paper. As a result, the dollar depreciated significantly against other major currencies—by about two-thirds. The depreciation against gold was even more severe: the gold price soared from $35 to $850 in 1980.

A similar phenomenon occurred with oil. The price of oil rose from $3 per barrel to $40. It wasn't that oil became more expensive; it was that the dollar depreciated. At that time, the U.S. accused OPEC countries of "driving up oil prices," but the real reason was: we were using "paper," not "gold." Since we were paying with paper, they would naturally want more "paper."

I believe the current situation is like the "second phase" of that transformation. This time, the world is not departing from gold but from the dollar. For decades, the global economy has still relied on the dollar system. But now, central banks are quietly de-dollarizing, replacing the dollar with gold as a reserve asset. This means the world is returning to a reserve system centered around gold. While it may not be a strict "gold standard," countries will hold more gold and reduce their reliance on the dollar, euro, or pound.

For the U.S., this will be a historic turning point. It means the U.S. can no longer "overspend" as it did in the past—it can no longer rely on printing money to buy things it hasn't produced, nor can it maintain consumption through borrowing. Going forward, the cost of living for Americans will rise significantly, and borrowing costs will soar. Asset prices—especially stocks and real estate—will continue to decline in real value when priced in gold. In fact, since 1999, the Dow Jones Index appears to have quadrupled in dollar terms, but when priced in gold, it has actually fallen by over 70%. This is the way to measure real purchasing power.

I believe this trend will not stop; rather, it will continue and accelerate. The world is officially returning from a "dollar standard" to a "gold standard."

Host: Your core prediction is that the upcoming crisis will "make 2008 look small," even like "a Sunday school picnic." Setting aside the metaphor, what does this specifically mean in reality? How will it unfold, and what kind of scene will it present? What should we pay attention to as early signs?

Peter Schiff: The 2008 crisis was essentially a "debt crisis"—it started with the subprime mortgage market and then spread to the institutions holding or insuring those mortgage debts. At that time, the U.S. government temporarily suppressed the impact through bailouts and stimulus measures. That indeed prevented the crisis from immediately evolving into a systemic collapse. Strictly speaking, from a longer-term perspective, if there had been no intervention back then, allowing the market to undergo a more thorough cleansing, the U.S. economy today might actually be healthier. But they chose a different path—kicking the can down the road.

This time is different—this is a crisis that the government can no longer save.

I am not predicting a collapse of the mortgage or credit markets; I am predicting a crisis at the level of U.S. government debt: a true sovereign debt crisis. This is no longer a matter of the market doubting whether a highly leveraged homeowner can repay a floating-rate loan; it is about the world beginning to question—can the U.S. government still repay its debts? What I am concerned about is not just "nominal default" (although that scenario is not impossible; in some sense, a direct default might even be better than I expect). The real risk is: when the debt matures, how much will the dollars you get back actually be worth?

If the only means of repaying debt is printing money—and that is indeed the case right now—then creditors will panic. Look at what Trump is saying: advocating for interest rate cuts during high inflation. What does that mean? It means we will create more inflation. When interest rates are long-term below inflation, lenders are not compensated, leading to a systemic sell-off of U.S. Treasuries. Once global investors are no longer willing to buy U.S. Treasuries or hold dollars, this is not just a sovereign debt crisis but a currency crisis—a higher-level crisis of the financial system.

Because this time, what will explode is the so-called "risk-free asset" itself. Its collapse will trigger a comprehensive shock in the credit market. By then, the U.S. government will be unable to rescue anyone; the Federal Reserve will not be able to "replace" the bad debts of the private sector with dollars or Treasuries as it did in 2008. The logic of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) was to use U.S. government debt to back private sector debt—provided the market still believed in U.S. Treasuries. And now, that confidence is fading.

In a scenario where the dollar is plummeting and inflation is soaring, what can the government do? They can no longer print money "willy-nilly," as that would only exacerbate the situation, causing the dollar to fall faster and long-term interest rates to rise higher. The remedies of the past have now completely failed. We are trapped in a dilemma. The only way out is the path the government has refused for decades—because that path is too painful. But because it has been delayed for so long, facing it now will be even more painful.

Host: If the crisis cannot be rescued, please describe specifically: assuming today is one year from now (October 22, 2025), how will this crisis erupt? What will be the first flashpoint?

Peter Schiff: First, look at gold. Last week, the gold price nearly surged to $4,400, then quickly fell back to around $4,000, but regardless, a gold price of $4,000 is already double what it was two years ago. Looking back in history, during the 1980 round, when the world was abandoning the dollar and losing confidence in the U.S., how did Paul Volcker rebuild that confidence? He raised short-term interest rates to 20%. It was essentially a message to those holding dollars: "You don't want to hold dollars? We'll pay you 20% interest." At that time, inflation was only about 10%-12%—a 20% return was enough to attract funds back.

At the same time, Reagan came to power and implemented market-oriented reforms and tax cuts, completely reversing the "big government, low efficiency, strong intervention" policy path of the Nixon-Ford-Johnson-Kennedy era, rebuilding confidence in the dollar. But today, all these tools have failed. First, Trump is not Reagan; and the current Powell is not Volcker—even if Volcker were still around, he would be unable to do what he did back then. Because the current debt level has made it impossible for the U.S. to bear such interest rates.

In 1980, the U.S. national debt was less than $1 trillion, and most of it was long-term fixed-rate debt. Even if short-term rates rose to 20%, the direct impact on the budget was limited. Today is completely different: about one-third of the national debt matures within a year, total debt exceeds $38 trillion, and the average duration of all debt is only about four to five years (I can't remember the exact number, but it's very short). If interest rates rise to 10%, soon we will have to pay $4 trillion in interest each year, which is almost impossible to bear. We currently only collect about $5 trillion in taxes per year, and if short-term rates really hit 10%, the economy would fall into a deep recession, with widespread corporate bankruptcies, soaring unemployment, exploding deficits, and plummeting tax revenues.

The conclusion is: we can no longer use interest rate hikes to combat inflation because the side effects would directly kill the patient. Since we cannot "cure" with rate hikes, we can only be dragged down by inflation, leading to the risk of evolving into a hyperinflation/currency crisis.

Is there a way to avoid the worst outcome? That would be default (or debt restructuring). The U.S. government could say: "We borrowed $40 trillion and cannot repay it, so we won't pay it all back. Maybe we can give you 25 cents on the dollar, and we might still be able to bear that."

At the same time, we need higher interest rates, which is also why debt restructuring is necessary: the problem over the past few decades has been that interest rates have been too low. Now the Federal Reserve and Trump still want to cut rates, but what we need is higher interest rates.

Trump complains about the hollowing out of manufacturing and the huge trade deficit. To solve these issues, we need higher interest rates—to reduce consumption and increase savings, using savings to build factories. Without savings, we cannot build factories; without factories, we still have to import what others produce. The reason we could do this in the past was that others were willing to accept our dollars (as a reserve currency). Once the dollar loses that status, the world will not exchange our "paper" for their goods. We will have to produce ourselves, but we currently lack capacity, infrastructure, supply chains, and skilled workers—these advantages that the U.S. had decades ago are now gone.

So, this is what it looks like in reality.

Host: To be fair, so far, the idea that "Bitcoin will fail" has not been proven wrong; but "being bearish on Bitcoin" has indeed been quite wrong over the past decade.

Peter Schiff: "Being right about Bitcoin" and "making money off Bitcoin" are two completely different things. I admit that the price has indeed risen a lot, that is true. But if it ultimately goes to zero—that precisely indicates that my judgment about its essence is correct: this is a massive Ponzi scheme. Yes, I could have bought in early and then sold at a high price, making a considerable profit. Many people have indeed done just that. They have not seen the true value and long-term prospects of Bitcoin; they just took advantage of more and more people making the same mistake, willing to buy at higher prices, thus making money.

The problem is that most people failed to exit at the right time. Some may have bought in at $5,000, seeing their investment rise twentyfold, thinking they were "right." But when the price falls back to $1,000, and their profits evaporate by 80%, were they "right" or "wrong"? If those gains were never realized, they effectively do not exist. In this sense, I still believe my judgment about the essence of Bitcoin—that it ultimately cannot fulfill its promises—is correct.

Of course, I also admit that I was "wrong" in not capitalizing on this frenzy to make money. I could have bought in at a very early, low price and then sold at multiple points, making a fortune. Over the past three to four years, even up to this year, my returns on other investments have actually been quite good; but if I had bought Bitcoin back then, my returns might have been even more astonishing. I just didn't do that.

In hindsight, I "should have" done that. But even so, I still believe that those who lose money on Bitcoin will ultimately far outnumber those who make money. Especially for those investors who are just entering the market now—they are likely to suffer significant losses.

Host: Even if being "wrong" once could yield a thousandfold or hundred-thousandfold return, I would be willing to take that bet. However, you have indeed been saying for a long time that "it will be hard to rise further." Assuming everything goes as you expect—you win, gold rises to $10,000, $15,000, or even $20,000, what will the world look like then? How should ordinary people respond? Should they go all-in on gold, or diversify? If they cannot hold dollars, what should they hold?

Peter Schiff: For someone my age with considerable assets, I recommend holding some gold—perhaps a maximum position of 5%, 10%, or 20%. Besides that, I like dividend-paying stocks; I personally hold quite a few gold stocks, but I also have many non-gold overseas stocks that I believe can provide real returns adjusted for inflation, helping American investors maintain their living standards amid the impending significant depreciation of the dollar.

For many young people who do not have much savings but want to prepare, I suggest holding some physical gold and silver—silver is more suitable because it is easier to trade and has a smaller unit value. For example, setting aside $5,000 to $10,000 to buy some silver coins can serve as both a store of value and something to use in extreme situations.

Additionally, don't just stock up on "the amount needed for the week." If you have space at home, stock up on some non-perishable essentials—things you will definitely use in six months, a year, or two years. Buy them now because they will be more expensive in the future. You are essentially locking in prices for yourself and combating inflation. For example, if a tube of toothpaste costs $5 now and $10 a year later, buying more now means that when you use it a year later, that "toothpaste investment" has earned you 100% (since you will use it eventually). Instead of putting money in the bank and buying more expensive toothpaste later, it is better to buy it now.

Another hidden danger is price controls. When the dollar really starts to plummet and prices begin to soar, the government may implement price controls like during the Nixon era, attempting to "hold down prices." The result is often shortages because when legal prices are suppressed below cost, merchants simply stop selling. By then, you might go to the supermarket or pharmacy and find that even toothpaste is unavailable. Then the black market will emerge, with higher prices and the risk of imprisonment; and the black market won't accept cards, likely preferring cash. So stocking up in advance can help you avoid the black market and reduce the impact. Remember how during COVID, people couldn't even find toilet paper? If price controls are added, the situation will be worse.

Even without price controls, the depreciation of the dollar will cause prices to keep rising; but priced in silver, many things will become "cheaper." You will be able to buy more physical goods with less silver. Many people mistakenly believe that Bitcoin can serve this purpose as well, but I think the opposite will happen: Bitcoin will also depreciate against the dollar. By then, if you want to buy something with Bitcoin, you will find that you need to spend more Bitcoin because the "prices" priced in Bitcoin will rise faster than those priced in dollars.

Host: That segment on "toothpaste investment" sounded like a "masterclass in marketing" in the crypto world. Honestly, over the past two days, I've watched many of your earlier interviews and gained a bit more respect for you. However, in the crypto space, you are often portrayed as the "angry dad who loves to criticize." I don't consider myself a "Bitcoin maximalist," but I am indeed a "crypto enthusiast." There is a scene I always remember: around 2006, you predicted a financial crisis on Fox News, and everyone in the room was laughing—hosts, guests, and the audience, all in uproar. I want to ask: before 2008, how could all those smart people collectively fail to see the crisis? With so many institutions and experts, why did almost no one realize it was about to happen?

Peter Schiff: That was typical groupthink. When everyone thinks in the same way, they instinctively reject any voice that challenges their beliefs. I often refer to it as "cognitive dissonance": they build a wall in their minds, and nothing I say can penetrate it because once they accept it, it would overturn their worldview, career paths, and interests. No one wants to admit that I am right.

Moreover, since no one else is saying it and I am the only one speaking out, they are even more likely to conclude: how could this guy from a small company be right while the economists from Harvard, the Federal Reserve, the big Wall Street firms, and the President's Council of Economic Advisers are all wrong? So they would rather believe that I am wrong.

But now, in the Bitcoin community, I see the same psychological structure: the faith in Bitcoin has become part of their identity, fully committed, unwilling to listen to any criticism, and all opposing views are "bounced back." So when I say "Bitcoin will crash," they laugh just like those people did when they heard me say "banks will fail, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will go bankrupt"—"impossible." And I can only say: that is precisely what will happen.

Host: To be fair, you started warning about the crisis in 2006, and it really erupted two years later; but you have been opposing Bitcoin for over ten years now.

Peter Schiff: In fact, I started warning about the risks in the financial system as early as 2002 or 2003. At that time, I had already seen the Federal Reserve pushing interest rates too low and noticed the lurking problems in the real estate and mortgage markets. By 2006, I was speaking more frequently and passionately, and I appeared more in the media, so the time that most people remember is 2006 or 2007. But yes, the Bitcoin bubble has indeed lasted longer than the real estate bubble. I have criticized Bitcoin for a longer time than I did the subprime mortgage and housing market. Because its lifespan has been artificially extended, many people think, "This time you must be wrong, right? It should have burst by now."

I believe there have actually been several moments when it was very close to "bursting." One of the successful aspects of the crypto space has been pulling Wall Street in—spot/ETF, MicroStrategy's "financial leverage + financing cooperation," and various forms of structured leverage have all extended the market. Additionally, they have worked hard to "convert" Trump and his family, tying the "crypto czar" and the influence of the White House into this, providing more fuel for this "pyramid scheme of raising prices and unloading."

But this cannot continue indefinitely; it will eventually peak and collapse under its own weight. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; its entire value comes from speculation, which requires a continuous influx of new buyers willing to take over at higher prices; once new buyers dry up, the mechanism will disintegrate. So they invented the mantra of "buy and never sell." This rhetoric was actually created by early large holders—they want to sell but need others not to sell and must continuously attract new people into the market. Ultimately, the structure will collapse. In fact, perhaps the collapse is already underway.

Just look at some crypto-related stocks: I mentioned today that the Winklevoss brothers' exchange Gemini just went public last month and has now dropped about 60% from its peak on the first day; Trump's media company DJT has also fallen 70% since October. And at that Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas, the so-called "Nakamoto" project they launched—I said at the time that it was a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. It was $30 when it launched, and now it's only $0.70.

This is a portrait of a bubble: everything seems to be maintainable, but the collapse has already begun.

Host: Have you ever thought that over the past decade, you might have mentioned "Bitcoin" more times on your shows and social media than anyone else? To some extent, you are also "promoting it," right?

Peter Schiff: It is still alive and claims to have a "trillion-dollar" market cap. Just look at how deeply financial media has been infiltrated—when you open CNBC, almost the entire screen is filled with crypto content. I even suggested they rename themselves "Crypto News" or "Bitcoin Channel."

Host: To be fair, it is one of the best-performing assets of the past decade, and the media has an obligation to "inform the audience," right?

Peter Schiff: When they lose all their money, the audience may turn around and sue the media. Look at who is buying ads and who is sponsoring—crypto projects have bought a lot of commercial airtime. Platforms almost do not allow people to speak ill of Bitcoin.

Host: But you are almost speaking out every day, and you often appear on CNBC.

Peter Schiff: I can hardly get on now. They stopped inviting me largely because of my negative stance on Bitcoin. Sponsors will say: we spend money on advertising, but don't let Peter Schiff go on and undermine it.

Host: People in the Bitcoin community actually "welcome" you on the show—they need a villain to solidify their stance. Okay, one last big question: you predicted the 2008 crisis; how did you operate that year? Is there a similar reference today?

Peter Schiff: In 2008, I was overall hit hard. The only profitable move was my "short on subprime" I made in 2007, which I cashed out before the crisis. But at that time, I held a lot of gold stocks and overseas stocks, which fell even more than the overall U.S. stock market in 2008.

However, in 2009, they rebounded more vigorously, and I made back most of my losses (not counting the profits from the short). What I did well was positioning for the dollar crisis "after the financial crisis." If you look at my first book, "Crash Proof" (How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse), the ideas are very clear: after the financial crisis, the mortgage and real estate collapse, banks failing, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac getting into trouble, the government would print a lot of money (later called quantitative easing). I judged that this would trigger a crisis in the dollar and bond market, and gold prices would soar. It turned out I was right about the direction but wrong about the timing. Gold did indeed surge to $1,900, but then fell back; the dollar initially fell and then rose. The Federal Reserve successfully inflated the bubble even larger—stocks, real estate, bonds, and even crypto assets all became bubbles. I call it "everything bubble."

Later, I wrote "The Real Crash" (How to Profit from America's Coming Bankruptcy), where I emphasized: 2008 was not "the collapse I was really worried about"; the real collapse is in the dollar and bonds. It has not happened yet, but I believe it is very close now. The renewed strength of gold is a warning. It is like the signal during the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007—everyone said it was "controllable," and then the whole world got swept in. Today, many people see the rise in gold only as a "thematic stock" or "momentum stock," but they do not understand the implications behind it.

In my view, this is actually telling us: the world is losing confidence in the dollar. The dollar crisis that should have erupted years ago is now approaching.

Host: You just mentioned the "everything bubble"; does that mean gold has also entered a bubble now?

Peter Schiff: No. It has indeed risen quickly recently, from $3,500 or $3,600 all the way to $4,400, then quickly fell back, with a single-day drop of over 6.5%. But it is still far from being a "bubble."

Let me take my own company SchiffGold's business as an example: over the past two years, our sales have not been high. Although it has improved somewhat in recent weeks, during the period when gold prices rose from $2,000 to $4,000, we did not see the so-called "gold rush." Our best year was during the pandemic in 2020—when people were panicking and buying gold. In the past two years, people have not been afraid; they are more keen on buying Bitcoin and tech stocks.

The real big buyers now are central banks. They are not speculators; they do not intend to buy high and sell low but treat gold as a long-term reserve asset because their confidence in the dollar is declining. From an asset allocation perspective, the proportion of investments in gold and related stocks (including mining stocks) among institutions like pension funds, endowment funds, and hedge funds is only about 2%, far below historical averages.

If this is considered a bubble, then "bubbles" should be everywhere—but the reality is quite the opposite. Those photos you see on social media of "lines to buy gold," I suspect many are actually lines to sell jewelry for cash. Here, during the rise in gold prices, many old customers have chosen to sell at a high price. This is more like a rational liquidation rather than a nationwide frenzy.

From last year to this year, gold ETFs and gold mining stock ETFs have been experiencing continuous net outflows. In the gold market, fear outweighs greed; while in the Bitcoin market, what I see is almost all greed—constantly shouting "it will definitely reach a million, ten million," which is a typical "all-in narrative": if you don't buy, you will be poor. On the gold side, there is no such collective delusion.

Host: Do you think the blockchain industry has produced any "positive products"? Do you like stablecoins? What about smart contracts? For example, do you think prediction markets like Polymarket have value?

Peter Schiff: A few years ago, I did an Ordinals NFT with a friend on Bitcoin called "Golden Triumph"—the image is of a hand holding up a gold bar, somewhat like joking "in the face of Bitcoin": the ultimate victory belongs to gold. This NFT came with a signed version of a real print. The original oil painting did not sell, but the printed version sold out, and later someone resold it on Magic Eden.

Overall, I am not optimistic about the NFT craze. Its outcome was as I expected—briefly popular, then quickly extinguished. More than a decade ago, people told me "blockchain will change everything," but to this day, it has had almost no substantial impact on my life. I haven't put my car title or house title on the chain, nor do I rely on the chain to trade stocks.

You mentioned examples like Polymarket; I don't think blockchain is necessarily required to achieve that. The internet changed my life immediately when it came out—I didn't need to buy its stock to use its products; whereas blockchain/Bitcoin has had almost zero impact on my daily life.

Ironically, the assets most suitable for being on-chain are actually gold. Many people who argue against gold like to ask: do you need to scrape shavings off a gold bar to buy a cup of coffee? But the world operated under the gold standard for thousands of years without our technology and could easily trade with gold. And today, with blockchain, it is even simpler: store gold in a custodian, tokenize ownership, and you can transfer ownership of the token representing gold in your wallet, achieving instant, transparent, low-cost, and verifiable transactions on the blockchain.

As for stablecoins, they are pegged to the dollar, which is not stable—it depreciates over the long term; moreover, the interest on stablecoins is taken by the issuer, and token holders do not receive it. That is the worst way to "hold dollars": you are holding a non-interest-bearing token pegged to a depreciating currency. It would be better to tokenize gold, pegging it to "stability." It can do what Bitcoin promises but fails to deliver: a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.

I will likely create my own gold token: we are building a platform for SchiffGold, where users can buy gold on a mobile app, with the physical gold stored by us and owned by the users; users can transfer ownership of the gold within the app for payments or redeem physical gold, and in the future, they can also redeem on-chain tokens. At the same time, we plan to provide a debit card, with gold and silver as the backing; when you swipe for $10, the system will sell an equivalent amount of gold to settle. Of course, ideally, the other party would also be willing to accept gold, so it would settle directly in gold.

Some people question "counterparty risk." My view is that capitalism is inherently full of counterparty relationships—insurance and custody are like that. For example, Brinks has been in the gold custody business for over 160 years and has never lost a gram of gold in its history; this is the accumulation of brand and reputation. You cannot say "gold is not viable" just because there is counterparty risk.

As for whether this is "blockchain/DeFi/RWA," it can be on-chain, but it does not necessarily have to be. I am more concerned about the intrinsic value of gold; the token is just a more convenient vehicle. I also hope it can be used across multiple chains and transferred across chains, with users paying the respective chain's gas fees for on-chain transfers; but if it is just an internal transfer among SchiffGold users, there is no need for it to be on-chain, and there are no additional costs.

There are already similar products on the market, such as Tether's Tether Gold. By the way, I have always kept a good domain name related to "gold"; I thought Tether would come to buy it back then, but they didn't. Now, if you visit that domain, it will directly redirect to SchiffGold.

Host: Do you still hold any Bitcoin? Including the portion left from the sale of the Ordinals NFT back then?

Peter Schiff: I didn't keep the portion of Bitcoin from the Ordinals sale. However, I do have a little Bitcoin—about a third of a Bitcoin in an old wallet, but I haven't been able to access it for many years, so it's essentially gone. Besides that, I also created a project that can be considered a "joke," called "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve." It was inspired by Trump's announcement of establishing a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve," so I jumped on the bandwagon.

I made the wallet address public; initially, I used a Coinbase address, but later, to allow everyone to see the transactions directly, I bought a cold wallet and transferred that portion of the "strategic reserve" into it. So technically, I do have a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve" and a "small crypto stash," just like the U.S. government. But the key point is: I have never spent a dime of my own money; all those coins were donated by others. I also promised—never to use them. The last time I checked, there was about six or seven thousand dollars' worth of Bitcoin, along with a few hundred dollars in other altcoins, mainly things like Solana, and that's it.

In summary, I have never used my own funds to buy even a little Bitcoin. Even the batch that was later "lost" was all given to me by others. It all started when Anthony Pompliano (@APompliano) said he wanted to give me $100 worth of Bitcoin, and I told him I didn't have a wallet, so he couldn't transfer it.

Going back a bit further, it was after I had a Bitcoin debate with Erik Voorhees (@ErikVoorhees), and after the debate, we went out to eat. He and another friend helped me set up a wallet on my phone (it was some app like Crypto.com), and then to demonstrate, they transferred about $100 worth of Bitcoin to me. I immediately transferred back $50, so when I left the restaurant, I had $50 worth of Bitcoin in my wallet.

They gave me a PIN code but did not provide me with a recovery phrase or a password. So I relied on that one PIN for many years. Later, at a conference, someone bought my book and paid with Ethereum or Bitcoin, and the coins in my wallet gradually accumulated to a few hundred dollars. After that, I sent that address to Pompliano to have him send some coins over; he didn't transfer, but others gradually sent me coins, and eventually, I had about a third of a Bitcoin. At that time, Bitcoin was around $10,000, and it later rose even higher.

Until one morning, I woke up and found that I couldn't access the PIN anymore. I said, "I didn't forget the password; the wallet forgot my password," and everyone laughed at me. But the truth is—I had no idea what the password was; I only had the PIN.

I contacted Erik Voorhees and also reached out to the wallet company, but they couldn't find my account information. I had no recovery phrase, no password, nothing. Later, the wallet company did a version update that required re-entering the password, and my PIN had already expired. So, those coins became completely inaccessible.

So to clarify: that batch of Bitcoin was all donated by others; including the Bitcoin in what I now call my "strategic reserve," I have never spent my own money on it. I won't touch them; I'll just leave them there—whether they rise or fall, I plan to go down with this ship.

Host: The little Bitcoin you got five or six years ago and can’t access now has outperformed the gold you’ve held for over thirty years.

Peter Schiff: That's about right. That little Bitcoin has increased roughly tenfold since I got it. But when I bought gold, the price was under $300, and now it has risen to over $4,000, also more than tenfold.

Of course, if the funds I should have invested in gold and gold mining stocks over the past twenty years had all been used to buy Bitcoin early on—then today I might be a "multi-billionaire." But that would be based on one premise: I never sold any. The reality is, I couldn't have done that. Given my investment nature, I would have definitely sold in batches during the rise.

I do know quite a few people who made a lot of money on Bitcoin and are now very wealthy, some even richer than I am. But I believe they will eventually give back a significant portion of their profits.

There are also some who are more rational and have cashed out a lot at high prices—this is my advice to any holder: even if you don't liquidate completely, you should at least take some profits. You can sell a portion and convert it into other assets. Spend a little money and enjoy the fruits of your gains; then take some to buy gold, silver, real estate, or quality dividend-paying stocks.

Don't put all your wealth into a fantasy—"Bitcoin will definitely rise to a million, or even ten million." If one day you wake up and find it has gone to zero, that feeling will be terrible. You can't go back and do it all over again. Young people are fine; they still have their whole lives ahead of them to make a comeback; but for older people, much of their life is already behind them—they don't have as much time to start over.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。