2025-12-06 09:30:20

A heated debate on "What is money?" erupted.

At a certain blockchain conference, CZ clashed with gold die-hard Peter Schiff. As things got intense, CZ pulled out a gold bar and handed it over: "Can you verify its authenticity on the spot?" Schiff stared at the mint marks but just couldn’t be 100% sure. CZ seized on this—gold requires professional equipment and experience to authenticate. But Bitcoin? Just check the on-chain data and its authenticity is instantly clear.

Schiff’s logic is traditional: tokenized gold is backed by real metal in vaults, which he considers true, asset-backed value. CZ’s rebuttal was more direct: Bitcoin’s value comes from its hard cap of 21 million coins and global consensus, with transparency and verifiability that outclass physical assets.

Old money vs. new money—what’s your take on this showdown? $BTC

BTC-0.18%

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasFeeCrier

· 13h ago

Haha, Schiff's expression must have been so awkward—holding a gold bar but unable to verify its authenticity. Doesn't that just prove the point? With on-chain verification, you can find out the truth in seconds. This is what the future should look like.

View OriginalReply0

BrokeBeans

· 13h ago

Haha, CZ really played this move brilliantly, even brought out gold bars... But Schiff's argument isn't wrong either, at least you can physically touch gold. What is human's real identity and viewpoint? Not sure, but I think both of them are just making their own points. So who should I side with? Well, Bitcoin is indeed highly transparent, but what if the whole network's hash rate has issues one day? Maybe I'm overthinking it.

View OriginalReply0

SerumSurfer