Peter Schiff's high-energy gold extremism stands in opposition to CZ's rational, use-case-based defense of Bitcoin. Schiff argues that tokenized gold upgrades a scarce, industrially useful metal with a digital track, maintaining its role as a perpetual store of value while improving its monetary properties: ownership can change hands instantly, while gold bars remain in vaults. In his view, Bitcoin is ultimately just another unsecured asset whose price depends on confidence, while gold's value is based on real-world utility and thousands of years of monetary history.
CZ counters by emphasizing that many parts of today's economy operate on virtual records, arguing that Bitcoin's value comes from its trustless design, global community, and real-world use, from people in Africa paying bills in minutes to millions spending via crypto cards. He stresses that tokenized gold still requires trust in issuers and vaults, while Bitcoin does not. The two have never agreed on what "sound money" should be—Schiff grounds his views in physical scarcity and industrial demand, while CZ grounds his in networking, openness, and censorship resistance—but their clash clearly reveals a core divergence emerging in the future monetary debate.
The debate highlighted a shift in narrative: gold extremism now sounds defensive, while digital scarcity feels inevitable. CZ concluded by winking at the audience: "I think gold will perform well, but Bitcoin will be even better." $BTC $PAXG
