This article is from: CounterParty TV

Translation｜Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina); Translator｜Ethan (@ethanzhang_web3)

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 the decentralized future. (See: “What did CZ say during the 3 hours before the ‘1011 Great Purge’?”)

Just two weeks later, the host handed the microphone to the other end—Peter Schiff, an economist, a staunch gold believer, 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 humorously remarked at the beginning of the program that he was "dressed in a polo shirt and shorts," 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 perspectives. Below is the original content of the interview, translated by Odaily Planet Daily, with some content omitted for smoother reading.

Original text as follows

• Host: I have watched many of your interviews, such as when you warned about 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 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 in the crypto space regarding 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, only pass it on to the next person.

So they naively categorize gold in the same way, thinking of it as just a "useless stone," 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 a series of unique properties: it is divisible, fungible, durable, and portable. Bitcoin does mimic these properties of gold, but it lacks the most essential one—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 chemistry 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—which 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 applied in electronics, aerospace, medical, dental, and many other 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 that. Today, no one "needs" Bitcoin, and no one will 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 participants take over.

• Host: You seem to understand the concept of Bitcoin well. But conversely, do you reflect on whether your prediction of its "zeroing out" in 2017 was 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 gullibility of the public and the marketing prowess of Bitcoin promoters.

The early participants in Bitcoin were extremely successful in market promotion—they constructed 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 after Trump won the election, I believe the crypto industry even actively participated in promoting Trump's victory during that time, one of the underlying purposes being to continue "pumping" to create more 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 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 noticed you consistently use "gold pricing" to measure the market, which is indeed commendable consistency. Now let's change direction; today, let's not talk much about Bitcoin, but could you explain to young viewers: _**Why has gold 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 done through BitPay to convert Bitcoin into dollars, which are then 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 skyrocketed from $35 to $850 in 1980.

A similar phenomenon occurred with oil. Oil prices 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 actual value when priced in gold. In fact, since 1999, the Dow Jones index appears to have quadrupled when priced in dollars, 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 the "dollar standard" to the "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 on a _realistic level_? How will it unfold, and what kind of scene will it present? What _precursors_ should we pay attention to?_*

Peter Schiff: The 2008 crisis was essentially a "debt crisis"—it started with the subprime mortgage market and then spread to the institutions that held or insured those mortgage debts. At that time, the U.S. government temporarily suppressed the shock through bailouts and stimulus measures. This 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 and the market had undergone a more thorough cleansing, the U.S. economy today might actually be healthier. But they chose another path—kicking the can down the road.

This time is different—this is a crisis where the government can no longer step in to save.

I am not predicting a collapse of the mortgage or credit markets; rather, I am predicting a crisis at the level of U.S. Treasury debt: a true sovereign debt crisis. This is no longer about the market questioning whether a highly leveraged homeowner can repay a variable-rate loan; it is about the world beginning to question—can the U.S. government still pay its debts? What I am worried about is not just "nominal default" (although that scenario is not impossible; in some sense, a direct default might even be a better outcome 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 repayment 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 kept below inflation for a long time, lenders will not be compensated, leading to a systemic sell-off of U.S. Treasuries. Once global investors are no longer willing to buy U.S. Treasury bonds or hold dollars, this will not just be a sovereign debt crisis; it will be a currency crisis—a higher-level crisis of the financial system.

Because this time, the so-called "risk-free asset" itself will explode. Its collapse will trigger a comprehensive shock in the credit market. By then, the U.S. government will be powerless to save 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 of a plummeting dollar and soaring inflation, what can the government do? They can no longer print money "willy-nilly"; that would only pour fuel on the fire, 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 that the government has refused for decades—because that path is too painful. But because it has been dragged out 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 in any case, 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%, and 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 previous path of "big government, low efficiency, and strong intervention" from the Nixon-Ford-Johnson-Kennedy era, thereby 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 powerless to do what he did back then. Because the current scale of debt has made it impossible for the U.S. to bear such interest rate levels.

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 plunge 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 can't repay it, so we won't pay it all back. Maybe we'll 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 it was possible 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 have no capacity, no infrastructure, no supply chains, and no skilled workers—all the advantages 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 been quite off the mark over the past decade, hasn't it?

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 would precisely indicate 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 indeed did just that. They did not see the real value and long-term prospects of Bitcoin clearly; they just took advantage of more and more people making the same mistake, willing to take over 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 drops 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: the number of people losing money on Bitcoin will ultimately far exceed those making money. Especially 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 still be willing to take the gamble. However, you have indeed been saying for a long time that "it will be hard to rise further." Okay, let's bring the focus back—you're here today mainly to talk about gold. Is this considered a "victory tour" of your career? (Peter Schiff: It's not quite a tour. I believe gold will continue to rise. It's only $4,000 now; the journey is far from over. The dollar crisis, the collapse of U.S. Treasuries, the significant devaluation of the dollar… none of these have happened yet. Until then, I won't say "I told you so.") But you clearly believe all of this will happen, including the collapse of Bitcoin. (Peter Schiff: Yes, I believe all of this will happen. Bitcoin may even collapse before the dollar or U.S. Treasuries—it's at risk of collapsing at any moment. The only thing supporting it right now is the policy environment under Trump. Beyond that, it has no substantive support.) Now let's wrap up the line of "apocalypse/hyperinflation." 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 can't hold dollars, what should they hold?

Peter Schiff: For someone my age with considerable assets, I recommend holding some gold—perhaps a position limit of 5%, 10%, or 20%. Beyond that, I like dividend-paying stocks; I personally hold a lot of 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 standard of living amid the impending significant devaluation of the dollar.

For many young people who don't 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 lower unit value. For example, set aside $5,000 to $10,000 to buy some silver coins; they can serve as a store of value and can be used 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 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 effectively 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 were going to use it eventually). Instead of putting money in the bank and buying more expensive toothpaste later, you might as well buy it now.

Another hidden danger is price controls. When the dollar truly starts to plummet and prices begin to soar, the government may impose 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 a 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 get toilet paper? If price controls are added, the situation will be worse.

Even without price controls, the devaluation 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 devalue 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: Your recent "toothpaste investment theory" sounds like a masterclass in marketing within the crypto world. Honestly, over the past two days, I've watched quite a few of your early interviews and gained a newfound respect for you. However, in the crypto circle, you are often portrayed as the "angry dad who loves to criticize." I wouldn't call myself a "Bitcoin maximalist," but I am indeed a "crypto enthusiast." There's an image that has stuck with me: back in 2006, you predicted a financial crisis on Fox News, and everyone in the room was laughing—hosts, guests, and the audience, all in uproar. My question is: how could all those smart people collectively fail to see the crisis before 2008? With so many institutions and experts, why did almost no one realize it was about to happen?

Peter Schiff: That was a classic case of 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 no matter what I say, it can't get through because accepting it would overturn their worldview, career paths, and interests. No one wants to admit that I am right.

And since no one else is saying it, only I am, it becomes even easier for them 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 I am wrong.

But now, in the Bitcoin community, I see the same psychological structure: the belief 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 collapse," they laugh just like those people did when I said "banks will fail, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will go bankrupt"—"impossible." All I can say is: that is exactly what will happen.

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

Peter Schiff: In fact, I began 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 the lurking problems in the real estate and mortgage markets. By 2006, I was speaking more frequently and passionately, and I was in the media more, so the general memory of that time point is 2006 or 2007. But it's true that the Bitcoin bubble has lasted longer than the real estate bubble. I have criticized Bitcoin for a longer time than I criticized subprime mortgages and the housing market back then. 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 close calls to "bursting" in between. One of the things the crypto circle has done very successfully is bring Wall Street into the fold—spot/ETF, MicroStrategy's "financial leverage + financing combination," various forms of structured leverage, all of which have extended the market. Additionally, they have worked hard to "bring Trump and his family into the fold," tying the "crypto czar" and the influence of the White House to provide more fuel for this "pyramid scheme of raising and unloading."

But this cannot continue indefinitely; it will eventually peak and collapse on itself. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; all its value comes from speculation, which requires a constant 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 to 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 since 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 down to $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 shows and social media than anyone else? In a way, aren't you also "promoting" it?

Peter Schiff: It's still alive and claims to have a "trillion-dollar" market cap. Just look at how infiltrated financial media has become—if you open CNBC, it's almost all 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 does have an obligation to "inform the audience."

Peter Schiff: Once they lose all their money, the audience might 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 don't 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 say: we spend money on advertising, but don't let Peter Schiff go on and undermine it.

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

Peter Schiff: Overall, I was hit hard in 2008. The only profitable move was my "subprime short" 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 strongly, and I recovered most of my losses (not counting the profits from the short). What I did well was positioning for the dollar crisis that would follow 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 spike to $1,900 but then fell back; the dollar initially fell and then rose. The Federal Reserve successfully inflated the bubble even more—stocks, real estate, bonds, and even crypto assets all became bubbles. I call it "everything bubble."

Later, I wrote "The Real Crash" (The Real Crash: How to Profit from America's Coming Bankruptcy), where I emphasized that 2008 was not "the collapse I was really worried about"; the real collapse is in the dollar and bonds. It has yet to happen, but I believe it is very close now. The renewed strength of gold is a warning. It's like the signal during the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007—everyone said it was "controllable," and then the whole world got dragged in. Today, many people see the rise in gold only as a "thematic stock" or "momentum stock," without understanding 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 "everything bubble"; does that mean gold is also entering a bubble now?

Peter Schiff: No. It has indeed risen quickly recently, from $3,500 and $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 give you an example from my company SchiffGold: our sales over the past two years have actually 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—people were panicking and buying gold. In the past two years, people have not been afraid; they are more eager to buy 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 view 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 people "lining up to buy gold," I suspect many are actually lining up to sell jewelry for cash. During the rise in gold prices, many of our long-time customers chose to sell at high prices. This feels 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 net outflows. In the gold market, fear outweighs greed; while in the Bitcoin market, I see 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're just waiting to 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 find value in prediction markets like Polymarket?

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

Overall, I am not optimistic about the NFT craze. Its outcome is 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 needed 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 most suitable asset for the blockchain is gold. Many people like to ask when rebutting gold: 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 current technology and could easily trade with gold. Today, with blockchain, it has become even simpler: store gold in a custodian, tokenize ownership, and you can transfer ownership with a token representing gold in your wallet, achieving instant, transparent, low-cost, and verifiable transactions using blockchain.

Let's talk about stablecoins. They are pegged to the dollar, which is not stable—it has been depreciating over the long term; moreover, the interest on stablecoins is taken by the issuer, leaving token holders with nothing. It 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, anchoring it to the "stability" of gold. It can do what Bitcoin promises but fails to deliver: a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.

I am very likely to create my own gold token: We are building a platform for SchiffGold, where users can buy gold through 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 it for physical gold, and in the future, they can also redeem it for on-chain tokens. At the same time, we plan to provide a debit card backed by gold and silver, so when you swipe for $10, the system will sell an equivalent amount of gold to settle. Ideally, if the other party is willing to accept gold, then we can settle directly in gold.

Some people question the "counterparty risk." My view is: 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 single gram of gold in its history; this is the accumulation of brand and reputation. You can't dismiss gold just because there is a counterparty.

As for whether this is "blockchain/DeFi/RWA," it can be on-chain, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. I care more about the value of gold itself; 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's just an internal transfer among SchiffGold users, then it doesn't need to be on-chain and incurs no extra costs.

There are already similar products on the market, such as Tether's Tether Gold. By the way, I have kept a good domain name related to "gold" for a long time; I thought Tether would come to buy it back then, but they didn't. Now, if you visit that domain, it redirects directly 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 did not keep the portion from the sale of the Ordinals. However, I do still have a little Bitcoin; there is 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 out of reach. Besides that, I also created a project that is somewhat "joke-like," called "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve." It was inspired by Trump's announcement of establishing a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve," so I followed suit.

I made the wallet address public; I initially 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 single cent of my own money; all those coins were donated by others. I also promised—never to use them. The last time I checked, there were about six or seven thousand dollars' worth of Bitcoin, along with a few hundred dollars' worth of other altcoins, mainly Solana and the like, and that's it.

In summary, I have never used my own funds to buy even a little Bitcoin. Even the later "lost" batch of coins was all given by others. It all started when Anthony Pompliano (@APompliano) said he would 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 install a wallet on my phone (it was some app like Crypto.com), and then to demonstrate, he transferred about $100 worth of Bitcoin to me. I immediately transferred back $50, so when I left the restaurant, I still had $50 worth of Bitcoin in my wallet.

They gave me a PIN code but did not provide me with a recovery phrase or 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 I couldn't access the PIN anymore. I said, "I haven't forgotten the password; the wallet has forgotten 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 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 my so-called "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 sink with this ship.

• Host: The Bitcoin you got five or six years ago and now cannot access has outperformed the gold you have 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 less than $300, and now it has risen to over $4,000, also exceeding tenfold.

Of course, if I had invested the funds that should have gone into gold and gold mining stocks over the past twenty years into Bitcoin early on—then today I might be a "multi-billionaire." But that would be based on one premise: I have never sold any. The reality is, I could never do that. Given my investment nature, I would definitely sell 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 coin holder: even if you don't liquidate completely, you should at least take some profits. You can sell a portion first and convert it into other assets. Spend some 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—there's not much time left 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。