GOLD VS BITCOIN – Peter Schiff, Michael Oliver & Dominic Frisby

Dominic Frisby, Peter Schiff, and Michael Oliver debate the role of Bitcoin vs Gold in the global economy. Dominic Frisby argues that both Bitcoin and gold are independent forms of money that governments cannot manipulate, positioning them as allies rather than rivals. He highlights how Bitcoin is a digital store of value, while gold is the ultimate physical asset, emphasizing its deep historical significance: “That little bit of gold on your finger or around your neck is not only older than the Earth itself—it is older than the solar system.” Despite the ongoing battle between gold enthusiasts and Bitcoin supporters, Frisbee believes both assets have a place in the financial system.

Peter Schiff, however, dismisses Bitcoin as a legitimate asset, arguing that it lacks intrinsic value and is purely a speculative bubble driven by hype. He states that Bitcoin does not function as real money, since it is not widely used in transactions or as a unit of account. Contrasting it with gold, he explains: “Gold has value because of its metallic properties that make it unique, desirable, and useful—it is the most useful metal.” Schiff also warns that Bitcoin’s price surge is unsustainable, driven by speculative investors, and will eventually lead to a major collapse similar to past financial bubbles.

Michael Oliver takes a technical approach, analyzing Bitcoin’s correlation with the NASDAQ 100 and suggesting that its price movements mirror speculative stock market trends. He argues that Bitcoin is showing clear signs of a bubble, comparing it to historical market crashes. Oliver warns: “Even with something that’s valid—the internet bubble—it took an investment lifetime to come back to the nominal break-even, and years beyond that to get the real break-even because of the decay of the money.” He suggests that gold remains the more stable long-term asset, while Bitcoin’s extreme volatility makes it highly risky.