#比特币对比代币化黄金 That conversation in Dubai was quite interesting.



CZ pulled out a gold bar and handed it to Peter Schiff—the die-hard gold fan. Then he asked, "Do you think this thing is real?"

Schiff hesitated.
"I can't say for sure."

That answer was a bit awkward.

The London Bullion Market Association has long admitted a fact: Want to be 100% sure if gold is real? There's only one way—the fire assay. In plain terms, you have to throw the bar into a furnace and burn it to check its composition.

Think about that logic: To prove an asset is real, you have to destroy it first.

Can that kind of credibility really hold up?

Now, look at $BTC.

A few seconds, verification complete.
No experts needed, no equipment required, no trip to the lab.
And you don’t have to trust anyone.

Mathematics, consensus mechanisms, a public ledger—hundreds of millions of people around the world can verify its authenticity at any time. Anyone, any time.

What supports gold’s value? Scarcity.
But what if that scarcity can’t really be verified? What’s the point then?

There’s a data point that rarely gets mentioned:
In the global physical gold market, about 5% to 10% has been infiltrated by counterfeits.

What does that mean?
- Every vault is a gamble on trust
- Every gold bar could be adulterated
- Every transaction is built on the words "I trust you"

But Bitcoin? It never asks for your trust.
It only lets you verify.

Two assets, fundamentally different logic.

Gold’s market cap is $29 trillion—built on "trust me."
Bitcoin’s market cap is $1.8 trillion—built on "verify it yourself."

When the world’s most famous gold advocate can’t confirm the authenticity of his own gold bar,
the gold narrative is already cracking.

Assets that can’t prove themselves are destined to lose to those that can self-verify at any time.

Bitcoin writes proof every ten minutes.
Every block is a self-verification.
Uninterrupted, nonstop.

The question now isn’t, "Is Bitcoin qualified to be money?"
It’s the tougher one:
"Has gold ever really been verifiable?"

Pay attention to where institutional money is flowing.
This asset repricing has been happening for a while.

Yesterday’s conversation wasn’t a debate.
It was more like a farewell ceremony for an era.
BTC-1.94%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
OnchainFortuneTellervip
· 1h ago
Schiff’s "I can’t say for sure" directly exposed the awkwardness of gold. Seriously, if an asset can’t even verify its authenticity, how can it have the nerve to claim it’s worth $29 trillion?
View OriginalReply0
MeaninglessApevip
· 1h ago
Haha, Schiff can't keep a straight face anymore, can he? This trust game with gold really can't go on much longer.
View OriginalReply0
DaoGovernanceOfficervip
· 1h ago
empirically speaking, the verifiability framework here is *chef's kiss* but let me actually dig into the incentive structures... the assumption that cryptographic proof eliminates trust is itself a governance assumption most people haven't stress-tested
Reply0
StrawberryIcevip
· 1h ago
Schiff's "you can't be sure" is really something else. Gold fans would have to burn it to verify, this logic is just absurd.
View OriginalReply0
SellLowExpertvip
· 1h ago
Schiff's "can't say for sure" was epic—even the gold guru had to admit defeat, haha.
View OriginalReply0
ApeShotFirstvip
· 1h ago
That awkward moment for Schiff was worth it. Gold can't even prove itself, so why is he still comparing it to BTC?
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)