Peter Schiff Calls Bitcoin ‘Zero’ Again as Stocks, Gold, and Silver Rally
Peter Schiff Renews Bitcoin Criticism as Stocks, Gold, and Silver Rally
The long-running clash between Bitcoin supporters and traditional asset advocates has reignited once again.
Peter Schiff, one of the most vocal critics of Bitcoin over the past decade, has renewed his criticism of the cryptocurrency, calling it “zero” in a recent social media post. Schiff argued that Bitcoin’s failure to rise alongside surging technology stocks, record-high gold prices, and a sharp rally in silver proves that the digital asset has no future upside.
“When tech stocks are rising, gold is above $4,400, silver is trading near $69, and Bitcoin isn’t moving, that tells you everything,” Schiff wrote. “If it can’t rise now, it never will.”
The comments quickly circulated across crypto-focused platforms and reignited a familiar debate that has persisted since Bitcoin’s early years: whether the asset is a revolutionary store of value or a speculative instrument destined to fade.
The remarks were flagged and confirmed by market observers, with reference to reporting shared by the X account Crypto Aman, according to information cited by the Hokanews editorial team.
 |
| Source: XPost |
A familiar voice in the Bitcoin debate
Peter Schiff is no stranger to controversy in financial markets. As a long-time gold advocate and vocal critic of central bank monetary policy, Schiff has consistently argued that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and will ultimately collapse to zero.
His skepticism dates back to Bitcoin’s earliest days, long before it entered mainstream financial discussions. Over the years, Schiff has dismissed every major Bitcoin rally as speculative mania, even as the asset has reached multiple all-time highs and attracted institutional interest.
Despite Bitcoin’s resilience, Schiff has never softened his stance.
Each period of market divergence—when Bitcoin underperforms traditional assets—has reinforced his conviction.
Schiff’s latest argument
At the core of Schiff’s latest critique is relative performance.
He points to a market environment in which technology stocks are climbing, gold has surged above $4,400, and silver has approached $69. In his view, Bitcoin’s inability to keep pace during this broad-based rally undermines its narrative as digital gold or a hedge against inflation.
Schiff argues that Bitcoin should outperform during periods when traditional assets are strong if it truly holds monetary value. Its failure to do so, he claims, reveals structural weakness rather than temporary consolidation.
For Schiff, the conclusion is simple: if Bitcoin cannot rise in a favorable macro environment, it never will.
Why Bitcoin supporters disagree
Bitcoin advocates strongly contest Schiff’s logic.
They argue that Bitcoin’s market behavior does not always mirror that of traditional assets and that short-term underperformance does not invalidate its long-term thesis. Bitcoin has historically moved in cycles that do not always align with equities or commodities.
Supporters also note that Bitcoin has experienced prolonged consolidation phases before major breakouts in previous cycles. Periods of low volatility and sideways price action have often preceded significant upward moves rather than permanent declines.
From this perspective, Bitcoin’s current performance may reflect market digestion rather than structural failure.
Market cycles and timing
Financial historians point out that different asset classes often peak and trough at different times.
Gold, silver, equities, and digital assets respond to overlapping but distinct forces, including interest rates, liquidity conditions, investor sentiment, and regulatory developments. Expecting perfect correlation across all assets can be misleading.
Bitcoin’s market structure has evolved significantly over the years. Institutional participation, derivatives markets, and global regulatory considerations now play a larger role than retail speculation alone.
As a result, Bitcoin may lag or lead traditional assets depending on which factors dominate at a given moment.
Gold versus Bitcoin: a long-running comparison
Schiff’s criticism is deeply rooted in his belief that gold remains the ultimate store of value.
He argues that gold’s thousands of years of history, physical scarcity, and universal acceptance make it superior to any digital alternative. Bitcoin, in his view, lacks intrinsic value and depends entirely on speculative belief.
Bitcoin proponents counter that digital scarcity, portability, and decentralization represent an evolution rather than a replacement of traditional stores of value.
They also note that Bitcoin’s fixed supply contrasts with gold’s ongoing production and that its performance over the past decade has outpaced nearly every major asset class despite repeated drawdowns.
The silver rally adds fuel to the debate
Silver’s sharp rally has added another layer to the discussion.
Often viewed as both an industrial metal and a monetary asset, silver’s recent strength has been cited by traditional investors as evidence that tangible assets are regaining favor. Schiff sees this as further confirmation that physical commodities outperform digital alternatives in times of economic uncertainty.
Bitcoin supporters respond that silver’s volatility and historical underperformance relative to gold weaken its case as a superior alternative. They argue that Bitcoin occupies a different niche, one shaped by digital infrastructure rather than industrial demand.
Bitcoin’s resilience despite criticism
Despite repeated predictions of collapse, Bitcoin has endured.
It has survived multiple market crashes, regulatory crackdowns, exchange failures, and internal industry scandals. Each cycle has tested investor confidence, yet the network continues to function and attract capital.
Bitcoin’s critics, including Schiff, have been consistent in their skepticism. So too have Bitcoin’s supporters been consistent in their belief that the asset’s long-term trajectory remains upward despite volatility.
This persistence on both sides has turned the debate into one of the most enduring ideological divides in modern finance.
Institutional perspectives complicate the picture
One factor often missing from Schiff’s critiques is the growing presence of institutional investors.
While Schiff argues that Bitcoin has no value, large asset managers, hedge funds, and publicly traded companies have allocated capital to it. These institutions typically operate under strict risk frameworks and extensive due diligence processes.
Their participation does not guarantee future price appreciation, but it challenges the idea that Bitcoin is universally dismissed by serious investors.
Bitcoin’s integration into regulated investment products has further blurred the line between speculative asset and recognized financial instrument.
Is Bitcoin required to move with everything else?
A central assumption in Schiff’s argument is that Bitcoin should rise whenever other risk assets or inflation hedges rise.
Economists note that this assumption may be flawed.
Assets can diverge for extended periods without invalidating their underlying thesis. Correlation shifts over time, particularly in emerging asset classes still finding their role within global portfolios.
Bitcoin’s supporters argue that its value proposition is not dependent on daily or monthly correlations but on long-term adoption, scarcity, and network effects.
The psychological element
The Schiff-versus-Bitcoin debate also reflects deeper psychological divides.
Traditional investors often prioritize tangible assets with long histories. Crypto investors tend to focus on technological disruption and future-oriented narratives.
These worldviews shape how each side interprets the same data. Where Schiff sees stagnation, Bitcoin supporters see consolidation. Where critics see failure, advocates see patience.
Neither perspective can be conclusively proven in the short term.
What history suggests
History shows that Bitcoin has repeatedly been declared dead during periods of underperformance.
Each time, the declarations have been followed by renewed interest and higher price levels, though always accompanied by significant volatility.
That does not guarantee the pattern will repeat. Markets evolve, and past performance does not ensure future results. However, it explains why many investors dismiss absolute claims that Bitcoin is “zero.”
Conclusion
Peter Schiff’s latest criticism reinforces a position he has maintained for years: that Bitcoin has no value and will never succeed as a monetary asset.
His argument, rooted in Bitcoin’s recent underperformance relative to stocks, gold, and silver, has reignited debate across financial markets. Supporters and critics alike interpret the same data through vastly different lenses.
Whether Bitcoin’s current price action represents a warning sign or a temporary pause remains uncertain. What is clear is that the ideological divide between traditional asset advocates and digital asset supporters shows no signs of fading.
As markets continue to evolve, the Schiff-versus-Bitcoin debate remains a defining feature of the broader conversation about the future of money.
hokanews.com – Not Just Crypto News. It’s Crypto Culture.
Writer @Ethan
Ethan Collins is a passionate crypto journalist and blockchain enthusiast, always on the hunt for the latest trends shaking up the digital finance world. With a knack for turning complex blockchain developments into engaging, easy-to-understand stories, he keeps readers ahead of the curve in the fast-paced crypto universe. Whether it’s Bitcoin, Ethereum, or emerging altcoins, Ethan dives deep into the markets to uncover insights, rumors, and opportunities that matter to crypto fans everywhere.
Disclaimer:
The articles on HOKANEWS are here to keep you updated on the latest buzz in crypto, tech, and beyond—but they’re not financial advice. We’re sharing info, trends, and insights, not telling you to buy, sell, or invest. Always do your own homework before making any money moves.
HOKANEWS isn’t responsible for any losses, gains, or chaos that might happen if you act on what you read here. Investment decisions should come from your own research—and, ideally, guidance from a qualified financial advisor. Remember: crypto and tech move fast, info changes in a blink, and while we aim for accuracy, we can’t promise it’s 100% complete or up-to-date.
Stay curious, stay safe, and enjoy the ride!