This article comes from: CounterParty TV

Compiled by Odaily Planet Daily ( @OdailyChina ); Translated by Ethan ( @ethanzhang_web3)

Editor's Note: Remember that livestream three hours before the October 11th Purge? It was the same livestream, the same host, but CZ, sitting in front of the camera, spoke passionately about Memecoin, the BNB ecosystem, and the decentralized future. (See: "What did CZ say on his livestream three hours before the October 11th Purge?" )

Just two weeks later, the host handed the microphone to the other end - Peter Schiff, economist, true believer in gold, and the most stubborn critic of the crypto circle.

One is the "founder of the crypto world," the other the "gravekeeper of traditional finance"; one writes code and white papers, while the other upholds the gold standard and hard currency. If CZ represents "crypto idealism," then Schiff is the embodiment of "monetary realism." He jokingly opened his show by saying he was "wearing a polo shirt and shorts," but then he silenced the crypto community with a series of sharp pronouncements:

• “You can cut nothing into a thousand pieces, but it’s still nothing.”
• “Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; all its value comes from speculation.”
• “The stablecoin’s anchor is the U.S. dollar, and the U.S. dollar itself is not stable.”

Now, this old-school economist, known as the "Godfather of Gold," is preparing to officially challenge CZ to a debate on the topic of "Bitcoin vs. Tokenized Gold." ( CZ, upon being invited , responded that the debate is tentatively scheduled for Binance Blockchain Week in early December.) He revealed that the core of the debate will revolve around the three functions of money: "Which asset best fulfills the functions of medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value?" In Schiff's view, Bitcoin is a speculator's illusion, while "tokenized gold" represents the digital return of money. For CZ, Bitcoin represents the underlying consensus of decentralized belief and "humanity's self-correction of power."

This interview, then, is more than just a conversation; it's more like a prologue to a debate between two eras, two faiths, and two perspectives on money. The following is the original interview, edited and abridged for clarity and clarity by Odaily.

The original text is as follows

• Host: I've watched many of your interviews, like the one in 2007 when you warned of a crisis and the host was laughing. And when the gold price was $1,200, you insisted on a bullish outlook of $5,000 and engaged in a heated debate with the host. These predictions were ultimately borne out. I'd like to start here: What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding of gold in the crypto community?

Peter Schiff: Many people misunderstand gold because they're trying to defend Bitcoin. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value—it's not a raw material that can be used to make things, nor is it an item that can be consumed. It's just a digital symbol that you can transfer to someone else, and they can't do anything with it except pass it on to the next person.

So they automatically put gold in this category, believing that gold is just a "useless stone" whose value only comes from people's "belief in its value." They conclude that if gold can be priced "based on belief," then Bitcoin can be priced as well.

But they overlook the most crucial point: gold does have intrinsic value , and that value is extremely high. This is the fundamental reason why it can serve as money—it is a scarce and precious physical commodity. Gold's superiority over other commodities and its long-standing use as money stems from its unique set of properties: divisibility, fungibility, durability, and portability. Bitcoin does mimic these properties of gold, but it lacks the most crucial element: actual value .

Without this, everything else is meaningless. You can cut "nothing" into countless small pieces, but it is still "nothing". Gold can be divided because it is a valuable substance in itself.

From an elemental perspective, gold is one of the most useful metals on Earth. It's not more widely used in industry because it's too expensive and too scarce—the very reason for its value. Gold is used in many fields, most notably jewelry. While other metals can be used, gold is preferred. It's also used in electronics, aerospace, medicine, dentistry, and many other industries.

Another important use is as a currency. Gold is a store of value because it doesn't decay or wear out. You could bury a gold coin for 500 years and dig it up, and it would still be as shiny as new, with no loss of value. This means gold can store wealth over time and remain usable well into the future.

Bitcoin is not like that. No one "needs" Bitcoin today, nor will anyone in the future. It cannot store value because it has no inherent value to store. It does have some technological innovations, but those are just technical features. Thousands of cryptocurrencies exist, each claiming to be "unique," yet none possesses real utility or intrinsic value. Moreover, new coins can be constantly issued, negating even the notion of "scarcity."

The entire cryptocurrency market is essentially a giant bubble. The earliest entrants profited—they held onto the coins early and cashed out at high prices as the bubble inflated. Those profits ultimately came at the expense of those who followed later. That's how it works: early adopters profit, while latecomers take over.

• Host: You seem to understand the concept of Bitcoin very well. But looking back, do you reflect on whether your prediction of its "zero return" in 2017 was a misjudgment?

Peter Schiff: I still believe that Bitcoin will eventually return to zero, so I don’t think I was “wrong.” But I admit that I underestimated the public’s gullibility and the marketing talent of Bitcoin promoters.

Bitcoin's early adopters were incredibly successful at marketing—they constructed a compelling narrative that persuaded people to buy the very thing they were trying to sell. It was, in a sense, a massive pump-and-dump operation. The earliest holders—the so-called "OGs" or "whales"—held vast quantities of Bitcoin. They created a market from scratch, persuading the public that the asset was valuable, thereby driving up the price and enabling them to cash out at a high price.

In my opinion, the market trends of the past few years are actually a continuation of this selling process. This is especially true after the launch of the Bitcoin spot ETF and Trump's election victory. I believe the crypto industry even actively participated in promoting Trump's victory during that period. One of the purposes behind this was to continue to "pump up" the market and create more room for early investors to exit.

Indeed, many people made money during that wave. But this is also why Bitcoin's price is stagnant today. After reaching over $100,000, it has been trading sideways for a long time, with no new highs.

If priced in gold, Bitcoin has actually fallen 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've noticed that you consistently measure the market in terms of gold, and that consistency is truly commendable. Let's shift gears a bit. Instead of focusing on Bitcoin, could you explain to our younger audience why gold has had its best year since 1979? What's going on?

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

I own a company called Schiff Gold, and we even accept Bitcoin payments. We simply convert Bitcoin into US dollars through BitPay, and then use it to buy gold or silver. As for why gold has performed so strongly this year, I think we are in a period similar to the 1970s - not just stagflation, but a "reset" of the global monetary system.

Before Nixon declared the dollar off the gold standard in the early 1970s, the dollar was effectively a proxy for gold—not only "backed by gold" but also "directly redeemable for gold." At the time, dollars held by central banks were essentially a receipt for gold. But in 1971, the United States unilaterally "defaulted," telling other countries, "You can no longer redeem dollars for gold." This meant the dollar was no longer tied to gold, but merely a printed piece of paper. As a result, the dollar depreciated sharply against other major currencies—by about two-thirds. The depreciation against gold was even more dramatic: the price of gold soared from $35 to $850 in 1980.

The same phenomenon occurred with oil. The price of oil rose from $3 to $40 per barrel. It wasn't the price of oil that went up, but rather the dollar's depreciation. At the time, the US accused OPEC countries of "price gouging," but the real reason was this: we were using "paper," not "gold." Since we were paying with paper, people naturally wanted more paper.

I see the current situation as a "second phase" of that transformation. This time, the world isn't moving away from gold, but away from the dollar. For decades, the global economy relied on the dollar system. But now, central banks are quietly de-dollarizing, replacing the dollar with gold as their reserve asset. This means the world is returning to a reserve system centered around gold. While not necessarily a strict "gold standard," countries are holding more gold and relying less on the dollar, euro, or pound.

For the United States, this will be a historic turning point. It means the country can no longer "overspend" as it has in the past—no longer printing money to buy things it doesn't produce, nor can it finance consumption through debt. Consequently, the cost of living for Americans will rise significantly, and borrowing costs will soar. Asset prices—particularly stocks and real estate—will continue to decline in real terms when measured in gold. In fact, since 1999, the Dow Jones Industrial Average appears to have quadrupled in dollar terms, but when measured in gold, it has actually fallen by over 70%. This is the true measure of purchasing power.

I believe this trend will not stop, but will continue and accelerate. The world is officially returning from the "dollar standard" to the "gold standard."

• Host: Your central prediction is that the coming crisis will "make 2008 look like a Sunday school picnic." Beyond the metaphor, what does this mean in practical terms ? How will it unfold and what will it look like? What are the precursors we should be most concerned about ?

Peter Schiff: The 2008 crisis was essentially a debt crisis—a crisis that erupted in the subprime mortgage market and subsequently spread to the institutions that held or insured these mortgages. At the time, the US government temporarily contained the impact through bailouts and stimulus measures. This prevented the crisis from immediately escalating into a systemic collapse. Strictly speaking, from a longer-term perspective, had the US economy not intervened, allowing the market to undergo a more thorough cleansing, the US economy might actually be in better shape today. But they chose a different path— kicking the can down the road .

But this time is different - this is a crisis that the government can no longer rescue.

I'm not predicting a collapse in the mortgage or credit markets, but rather a crisis at the level of US Treasury bonds : a true sovereign debt crisis. This isn't just about the market questioning whether a highly leveraged homeowner can repay their floating-rate mortgage, but rather a global questioning of whether the US government can still repay its debts. My concern isn't just about a "notional default" (although that's not impossible, and in some ways, an outright default is even better than I expect). The real risk is: when the debt matures, how much will the dollars you receive back be worth?

If the only way to repay debts is to print money—and it is currently—creditors will panic. Look at what Trump is saying: he advocates lowering interest rates when inflation is high. What does this mean? It means we will create more inflation. When interest rates are chronically below inflation, lenders are not compensated, and a systemic sell-off of U.S. Treasuries will occur. Once global investors are no longer willing to buy U.S. Treasuries or hold U.S. dollars, it becomes more than just a sovereign debt crisis; it becomes a currency crisis—a crisis at a higher level within the financial system.

This time, it will be the so-called "risk-free assets" themselves that will explode . Their collapse will trigger a widespread turmoil in the credit markets. The US government will then be unable to bail anyone out, and the Federal Reserve will be unable to "replace" private sector bad debts with US dollars or US Treasuries, as it did in 2008. The logic of TARP (Treat Asset Relief Program) was to use US government debt to cover private sector debt—assuming the market still believed in US Treasuries. Now, that confidence is fading.

In a scenario of a plummeting dollar and soaring inflation, what else can the government do? They can't just print more money; that would only add fuel to the fire, causing the dollar to fall even faster and long-term interest rates to rise. Past remedies have completely failed. We are trapped in a dilemma. The only way out is the one the government has rejected for decades—because it's too painful. But precisely because it's been delayed for so long, the pain will be even more intense if we face it now.

• Moderator: If the crisis cannot be resolved, please describe in detail: assuming that one year from now (October 22, 2025), how will the crisis unfold? What will be the first flashpoint?

Peter Schiff: Let's look at gold first. Last week, the price of gold nearly hit $4,400 before quickly falling back to near $4,000. Regardless, at $4,000, the gold price is already double what it was two years ago. Looking back at the 1980s, when the world was abandoning the dollar and losing confidence in the United States, how did Paul Volcker restore confidence? He raised short-term interest rates to 20%. This effectively said to dollar holders, "You don't want dollars? We'll pay you 20% interest." At the time, inflation was only about 10% to 12% at most, so a 20% return was enough to attract capital back.

At the same time, Reagan's rise to power implemented market-oriented reforms and tax cuts, completely reversing the "big government, inefficiency, and heavy intervention" policy path of the Nixon-Ford-Johnson-Kennedy eras and restoring confidence in the dollar. But today, these tools have all failed. First, Trump is not Reagan; and the current Powell is not Volcker—even if Volcker were still around, he wouldn't be able to replicate what he did. The current scale of the debt makes it impossible for the United States to sustain such interest rates .

In 1980, the US national debt was less than $1 trillion, and most of it was long-term, fixed-rate debt. Even if short-term interest rates rose to 20%, the direct impact on fiscal policy would be limited. Today, however, the situation is completely different: about a 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 rose to 10%, we would quickly be paying $4 trillion in interest annually, which would be almost unaffordable. We currently only collect $5 trillion in taxes annually, and if short-term interest rates did reach 10%, the economy would fall into a deep recession, with widespread business bankruptcies, soaring unemployment, exploding deficits, and plummeting tax revenues.

The conclusion is: we can no longer fight inflation by raising interest rates, because the effect would simply kill the patient. Since raising interest rates can't "cure" inflation, inflation will simply drag it down, and there's a risk of a hyperinflationary/currency crisis.

Is there a way to avoid the worst-case scenario? Default (or debt restructuring) . The US government could say, "We've borrowed $40 trillion and can't repay it, so let's not pay it all back. Maybe we'll give you 25 cents on the dollar, and we might be able to afford it."

At the same time, we need higher interest rates , which is why debt restructuring is necessary: the problem is that interest rates were too low in the past few decades. Now the Fed and Trump want to cut interest rates, but we need higher interest rates .

Trump complains about the hollowing out of manufacturing and the massive trade deficit. The only solution is higher interest rates—reducing consumption and increasing savings, which can then be used to build factories. Without savings, factories cannot be built; without factories, we still have to import products produced by others. This was possible in the past because others were willing to accept our dollar (the reserve currency). Once the dollar loses this status, the world will no longer trade our "paper" for their goods. We will have to manufacture our own products, but we no longer have the production capacity, infrastructure, supply chains, or skilled workers —all the advantages the United States enjoyed decades ago are gone.

So, this is what it looks like in reality.

• Host: To be fair, the idea that “Bitcoin will fail” has not been proven wrong so far; but being bearish on Bitcoin has been a bit outrageous over the past decade.

Peter Schiff: "Being right about Bitcoin" and "making money from Bitcoin" are two completely different things. I admit that the price has indeed risen significantly, that's true. But if it eventually returns to zero—that would prove that I was right about its essence: it's a massive Ponzi scheme. Yes, I could have bought in early and sold at a high point, making a substantial profit. Many people have indeed done just that. They didn't actually understand Bitcoin's true value and long-term prospects ; they simply profited by taking advantage of the fact that more and more people were making the same mistake and willing to buy in at higher prices.

The problem is that most people don't exit the market at the right time . Someone might buy at $5,000 and see a twenty-fold increase on paper, believing they were "right." But when the price drops back to $1,000, and 80% of that profit is wiped out, were you "right" or "wrong"? If that profit never materializes, it ultimately doesn't exist. In this sense, I still believe my assessment of Bitcoin's nature—that it ultimately fails to deliver on its promise —was correct.

Of course, I admit that I made the mistake of not capitalizing on the frenzy. I could have bought in much earlier, at much lower prices, and sold at various points, earning a tidy profit. Over the past three or four years, and even up until this year, my returns on other investments have been quite good. But if I had bought Bitcoin, my gains would have been even more impressive. I simply didn't.

In hindsight, I "should" have done that. But even so, I still believe that far more people will lose money on Bitcoin than make money . This is especially true for investors entering the market now—they're likely to lose a lot.

• Host: Even if I'm "wrong" once, and it yields a return of a thousand or a hundred thousand times, I'm willing to take the gamble. But you've been saying for a long time that "it's hard to see further gains." Okay, let's get back to the point—we invited you here today to talk about gold. Is this a "victory tour" of your career? (Peter Schiff: Not really a tour. I think gold will continue to rise. It's only $4,000 now, so the journey is far from over. A dollar crisis, a collapse of US debt, a 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 these will happen, including a Bitcoin crash. (Peter Schiff: Yes, I think all of them will happen. Bitcoin could even collapse before the dollar or US debt—it could collapse at any time. The only thing currently supporting it is the Trump policy environment. Beyond that, it has no real support.) So let's wrap up the "doomsday/hyperinflation" thread. Suppose everything goes as you predict—you win, and gold rises to $10,000, $15,000, or even $20,000—what will the world look like then? How should ordinary people cope? Should I go all-in on gold, or diversify my portfolio? If I can't hold US dollars, what should I hold?

Peter Schiff: For someone like me who's older and has a significant net worth, I recommend holding some gold —perhaps 5%, 10%, or 20%. Beyond that, I like dividend-paying stocks , and I own a number of gold stocks myself. But I also own a number of non-gold stocks overseas that I believe offer real, inflation-adjusted returns and can help American investors maintain their standard of living during the upcoming significant devaluation of the dollar.

For young people who don't have much savings but want to prepare, I recommend holding some physical gold and silver —preferably silver because it's easier to trade and has a smaller unit value. For example, you could invest $5,000 to $10,000 in silver coins, which can store value and be used in extreme situations.

Also, don't just stock up on "what you need that week." If you have space, stock up on non-perishable essentials —things you'll definitely need in six months, a year, or two years. Buy them now , because they'll be more expensive. You're essentially locking in a price and betting against inflation. For example, if a tube of toothpaste costs $5 today and $10 a year from now, buying more now will effectively earn you a 100% return on your "toothpaste investment" (you'll need it eventually anyway). Instead of putting your money in the bank and buying more expensive toothpaste later, it's better to buy it now.

Another hidden danger is price controls . If the dollar really starts to plummet and prices start to soar, the government might impose price controls, as it did during the Nixon era, in an attempt to "hold down prices." The result is often shortages, because when legal prices are pushed below cost, businesses simply stop selling. Then, you might go to a supermarket or pharmacy and find toothpaste completely empty. Then the black market emerges, with even higher prices and the risk of jail time. And black markets don't accept credit cards and may prefer coins. So stocking up in advance can help you avoid the black market and mitigate its impact. Remember during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people couldn't even get toilet paper? Adding price controls to the mix would make the situation even worse.

Even without price controls, a depreciating dollar would cause prices to rise. But when measured in silver , many things would become "cheaper." You could buy more physical goods with less silver. Many people mistakenly believe Bitcoin will have this same effect, but I believe the opposite will happen: Bitcoin will also depreciate against the dollar . If you then want to buy something with Bitcoin, you'll find you'll need to pay more because "prices" measured in Bitcoin will rise faster than those measured in dollars.

• Host: Your "toothpaste investment" segment just now sounds like a god-level sales pitch in the crypto world. Honestly, I've watched quite a few of your earlier interviews over the past two days, and I've gained a lot more respect for you. However, in the crypto community, you're often portrayed as that "angry dad who curses the heavens." I'm not a "Bitcoin maximalist," but I'm certainly a "crypto enthusiast." There's one scene I'll always remember: around 2006, you predicted the financial crisis on Fox TV, and everyone was laughing—the host, the guests, the audience. My question is: How could all those smart people collectively fail to see the crisis before 2008? With so many institutions and so many experts, why did almost no one realize it was coming?

Peter Schiff: That's classic groupthink . When everyone thinks the same way, they instinctively reject any voice that challenges their beliefs. I often call it " cognitive dissonance ": They build a wall in their heads, and nothing I say can get through it because accepting it would upend their worldview, their career path, and their interests. No one wants to admit that I'm right.

And since no one else is talking about it except me, it's easier for them to jump to conclusions: How could this guy from a small company be right, while Harvard economists, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street banks, and the President's Council of Economic Advisers are all wrong? So they'd rather believe I'm wrong.

But now, within the Bitcoin community, I see the same psychological structure : belief in Bitcoin has become part of their identity, a total commitment, an unwillingness to listen to any criticism, and any dissenting opinions are "bounced back." So, when I say, "Bitcoin will crash," they laugh like they did when I said, "Banks will fail, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will go bankrupt"—"No way." And all I can say is: That's exactly what will happen .

• Host: To be fair, you started warning of the crisis in 2006, and it really broke out two years later; but you have been speaking out against Bitcoin for more than ten years.

Peter Schiff: I actually started warning about the risks to the financial system as early as 2002 or 2003. By then, I'd already seen the Federal Reserve pushing interest rates too low and the potential problems lurking in the real estate and mortgage markets. By 2006, I was speaking out more frequently and more vehemently, and I was appearing in the media more frequently, so 2006 or 2007 is generally remembered. But it's true that the Bitcoin bubble lasted longer than the real estate bubble. I've been criticizing Bitcoin for longer than I was criticizing the subprime mortgage and housing markets. Precisely because its lifespan has been artificially prolonged, many people think, "You must be wrong this time! It should have burst long ago."

I believe there were several instances where the market came very close to breaking. One of the cryptosphere's most successful efforts was to draw Wall Street into the market—through spot trading/ETFs, MicroStrategy's "financial leverage + financing," and various structural levers—all of which prolonged the rally. Furthermore, their efforts to recruit Trump and his family, and to bring the influence of the "crypto czar" and the White House into the fold, further fueled this "pump and dump" pyramid scheme.

But these trends can't last indefinitely; they will eventually peak and collapse. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; its entire value comes from speculation, which requires a constant stream of new buyers willing to pay higher prices. Once new buyers dry up, the mechanism will collapse. So they invented the mantra " buy, don't sell ." This rhetoric was actually invented by the early major holders—they themselves want to sell, but they need others to hold them back, and they constantly have to attract new buyers. Eventually, the structure will collapse. In fact, the collapse may already be underway.

Just look at some crypto-related stocks: I mentioned today that the Winklevoss brothers' exchange, Gemini, went public just last month and is now down roughly 60% from its first-day high; Trump's media company, DJT, is down 70% since October. And then there's that Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas. They launched the so-called "Nakamoto" scheme—I called it a pyramid or Ponzi scheme back then. It went public at $30, and now it's only $0.70.

This is the portrayal of a bubble: everything seems to be able to be maintained, but in fact the collapse has already begun.

• Host: Have you ever thought that you've mentioned Bitcoin more than anyone else on your show and on social media over the past decade? In a way, you're also promoting it, right?

Peter Schiff: It's still alive and claims to have a "trillion-dollar" market cap. And look at how infiltrated the financial media has become—turn on CNBC and it's practically all crypto. I'd even suggest they change their name to "Crypto News" or "Bitcoin Channel."

• Host: To be fair, it is one of the best performing assets in the past decade, and the media also has an obligation to "inform the audience."

Peter Schiff: When they lose all their money, viewers might sue the media. Look at who's buying ads and sponsoring—crypto projects are buying up a lot of commercial time. Platforms rarely allow people to say anything negative about Bitcoin.

• Host: But you speak out almost every day, and you often appear on CNBC.

Peter Schiff: I can barely get on now. They stopped inviting me, largely because of my negative stance on Bitcoin. Sponsors would say: We'll spend money on advertising, but don't let Peter Schiff come on and sabotage it.

• Host: People in the Bitcoin community actually welcome you on the show—they need a villain to solidify their stance. Okay, last big question: You predicted the 2008 crisis. How did you react that year? Are there any similarities you can draw from today?

Peter Schiff: Overall, I was devastated in 2008. The only thing I made money on was my short position on subprime mortgages in 2007, which I cashed out before the crisis. However, I also held a large position in gold and overseas stocks, which fell even more in 2008 than the overall US stock market.

However, in 2009, they rebounded even more sharply, and I recouped most of my losses (excluding the gains from my short position). What I did well at the time was positioning for a post-financial crisis dollar crisis . If you look back at my first book, Crash Proof (How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse), the underlying strategy is clear: after the financial crisis, the collapse of mortgages and real estate, the collapse of banks, and the debacle of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government would print money en masse (later called quantitative easing). I predicted that this would trigger a crisis in the dollar and bond markets , leading to a sharp rise in gold prices. As it turned out, I was right in terms of direction, but wrong in terms of timing. Gold prices did indeed reach $1,900, but then retreated; the dollar, on the other hand, first fell and then rose. The Federal Reserve successfully inflated the bubble—in stocks, real estate, bonds, and even cryptocurrencies—everything was inflated. I called it the "everything bubble."

Later, in my book "The Real Crash: How to Profit from America's Coming Bankruptcy," I emphasized that 2008 wasn't "the crash I was really worried about." The real crash was in the dollar and bonds . It hasn't happened yet, but I believe it's very close. Gold's renewed strength is a warning sign. It's like the signal from the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis—everyone said it was "controllable," but the world was swept up in it. Today, many people view gold's rise simply as a "theme stock" or a "momentum stock," without understanding the underlying implications.

In my opinion, this actually tells us that the world is losing confidence in the US dollar . The dollar crisis that should have broken out many years ago is now approaching.

• Host: You just said "everything is in a bubble", so is gold also in a bubble now?

Peter Schiff: No. It's certainly risen rapidly recently, from 3500, 3600, all the way to 4400, before quickly falling back, with a single-day drop of over 6.5%. But it's still far from a "bubble."

Let me give you an example: our sales volume hasn't been very high over the past two years. While things have improved in recent weeks, we didn't experience the so-called "gold rush" from the time the gold price rose from $2,000 to $4,000. Our biggest year was 2020 during the pandemic—people panicked and rushed to buy gold. Over the past two years, however, people haven't been afraid; instead, they've been more interested in buying Bitcoin and tech stocks.

The real big buyers right now are central banks . They aren't speculators looking to buy low and sell high. Instead, they view gold as a long-term reserve asset, driven by declining confidence in the US dollar. From an asset allocation perspective, pension funds, endowments, and hedge funds allocate only about 2% of their assets to gold and related stocks (including mining stocks), far below the historical average.

If this were a bubble, it would have been everywhere long ago—but the reality is quite the opposite. I suspect many of those photos of people lining up to buy gold on social media are actually people waiting to sell jewelry to cash in. Here, even as gold prices have risen, many of our regular customers are choosing to sell at the high. This seems more like a rational process than widespread euphoria.

From last year to this year, gold ETFs and gold mining stock ETFs have experienced sustained net outflows . In the gold market, fear outweighs greed. In the Bitcoin market, however, I see almost exclusively greed—the constant cries of "definitely reaching millions, tens of millions" are a classic "all-in" narrative: if you don't buy, you'll be left poor . In the gold market, there's no such collective delusion.

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

Peter Schiff: A few years ago, a friend and I created an Ordinals NFT on Bitcoin called "Golden Triumph." The image depicts a hand holding a gold bar, a playful prank aimed at Bitcoin: gold ultimately triumphs. The NFT came with a signed, authentic print. While the original painting sold out, the print sold out and was later resold on Magic Eden.

Overall, I'm not optimistic about the NFT craze. It ended just as I expected—a brief burst of popularity followed by a quick demise. Over a decade ago, people told me "blockchain will change everything," but to this day, it has had virtually no tangible impact on my life. I don't keep my car or house deeds on blockchain, nor do I rely on it to trade stocks.

You mentioned examples like Polymarket. I don't think blockchain is necessary for this. When the internet first came out, it instantly changed my life—I used its products even without having to buy its stock. Blockchain/Bitcoin, on the other hand, has had almost no impact on my daily life.

Ironically, the asset most suitable for blockchain is gold. Many people, in their refutation of gold, like to ask: "Do you have to scrape off the gold bar and weigh it to buy a cup of coffee?" Yet, the world has lived on the gold standard for thousands of years, and even without today's technology, gold transactions were easily possible. Today, with blockchain, it's even simpler: deposit gold with a custodian, tokenize ownership, and transfer ownership between wallets using tokens representing gold. Blockchain makes this instant, transparent, cost-effective, and verifiable.

Let's talk about stablecoins. They're pegged to the US dollar, which is unstable—it depreciates over time. Furthermore, the interest on stablecoins goes to the issuer, not the token holders. That's the worst way to "hold dollars": you're holding a non-interest-bearing token pegged to a depreciating currency. It's better to tokenize gold, anchored to its "stability." It can fulfill what Bitcoin promises but cannot: a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.

I'm likely to create my own gold token . We're currently building a platform for SchiffGold, where users buy gold through a mobile app. The physical gold is held in our custody and owned by the user. Users can transfer ownership of the gold within the app for payment, redeem it for physical gold, and in the future, redeem it for on-chain tokens. We also plan to include a debit card with gold and silver as the backing. When you swipe $10, the system will sell the equivalent amount in gold for settlement. Ideally, if the other party is also willing to accept gold, then settlement can be made directly in gold.

Some have questioned the existence of "counterparty risk." My view is that capitalism is inherently rife with counterparty relationships —insurance and custody are examples. For example, Brinks has been specializing in gold custody for over 160 years and has never lost a single gram of gold. This is the result of its accumulated brand and reputation. You can't say "gold is bad" just because there are counterparties.

As for whether this is "blockchain/DeFi/RWA," it can be on-chain, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. I'm more concerned with the value of gold itself; the token is just a more convenient carrier. I also hope it can be used on multiple chains and circulate across chains. Users transferring on-chain will have to pay the gas of each chain; but if SchiffGold is simply transferred internally by users, then there's no need to go on-chain and there are no additional fees.

There are already similar products on the market, such as Tether's Tether Gold. Incidentally, I've always had a good domain name related to "gold" in my hands. I thought Tether would buy it, but they didn't. Now, if you visit that domain, you will be directly redirected to SchiffGold.

• Host: Do you still hold any Bitcoin now? Including the portion left over from the Ordinals NFT sale?

Peter Schiff:

I didn't keep the Ordinals sale. I do have a few bitcoins, though. An old wallet holds about a third of a bitcoin, but I haven't been able to access it in years, effectively losing access to it. Besides that, I started a somewhat "joke" project called the "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve." It was inspired by Trump's announcement of a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve," and I jumped on the bandwagon.

I've made my wallet address public. Initially, I used a Coinbase address. Later, to make transactions visible to everyone, I bought a cold wallet and transferred my "strategic reserve" into it. So technically, I do have a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve" and a "small crypto hoard," just like the US government. But the point is: I've never spent a penny of my own money; those coins were donated . I also promised—I'll never touch them. The last time I checked, I had about $6,000 to $7,000 in Bitcoin and a few hundred dollars in other altcoins, mainly Solana and the like. That's it.

In short, I've never used my own funds to buy even a single Bitcoin. Even the "lost" batch of Bitcoin was all gifts from others. It all started when Anthony Pompliano ( @APompliano ) offered to give me $100 in Bitcoin. I told him I didn't have a wallet, so he couldn't transfer it.

A little earlier, I think Erik Voorhees ( @ErikVoorhees ) and I had a Bitcoin debate, and afterward we went to dinner. He and another friend set up a wallet on my phone (something like Crypto.com) and transferred about $100 in Bitcoin to me for a demonstration. I transferred $50 back on the spot, so when I left the restaurant, I still had $50 in Bitcoin.

They gave me a PIN, but no recovery phrase or password. So I lived with that one PIN for years. Then, at a trade show, someone bought my book and paid with Ethereum or Bitcoin, and the coins in my wallet slowly accumulated to a few hundred dollars. Later, I sent the address to Pompliano and asked him to send me some coins. He didn't, but others sent me coins, and eventually I had about a third of a Bitcoin. At the time, the price of Bitcoin was around $10,000, and it later rose even higher.

Until one morning, I woke up and found that my PIN couldn't log in. I said, "I didn't forget my password, it was my wallet that forgot my password," and everyone laughed at me. But the truth was - I didn't know my password at all, I only had my 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. Then the wallet company released an update that required a new password, and my PIN was no longer valid. So, just like that, my coins were completely inaccessible.

So let me be clear: those bitcoins were all donated; including the ones in my so-called "strategic reserve," I've never spent any of my money. 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 bit of Bitcoin you got five or six years ago and can't get now has outperformed the gold you have held for more than 30 years.

Peter Schiff: About right. That little bit of Bitcoin has probably increased tenfold since I got it. But when I bought gold, the price was less than $300. Now it's over $4,000, also more than tenfold.

Of course, if I had invested all the money I should have invested in gold and gold mining stocks over the past two decades in Bitcoin in its early days, I'd probably be a multi-billionaire today. But that assumes I never sold. The reality is, I couldn't have done that. Given my investing personality, I would have sold in installments as the price rose.

There are indeed many people around me who have made a lot of money on Bitcoin and are now very rich, some of whom are even richer than me. But I believe that they will eventually give back a considerable part of their profits.

Some were more sensible and cashed out significantly while prices were high. This is my advice to anyone holding onto crypto: Even if you're not liquidating, you should at least lock in some of your profits. You can sell some and convert it into other assets. Spend some of the money and enjoy the gains; then use some to invest in gold, silver, real estate, or high-quality dividend-paying stocks.

Don't stake your entire fortune on a single illusion—"Bitcoin will definitely reach a million, or even ten million." Waking up one day and finding it's gone to zero would be a terrible feeling. You can't go back and start over. Young people still have a lifetime to make a comeback, but older people already have most of their lives behind them— no time to start over.