Bitcoin loses five percent, and in less than an hour, Peter Schiff has already posted about it. But it’s not a coincidence. For over 10 years now, it has been the trend and no one is predicting a change in that trend for 2026.
Whether you’ve been reading Bitcoin headlines or not, you’ve encountered Peter Schiff’s criticism of Bitcoin. He is the gold-bull economist who appears in the responses to all the major Bitcoin rallies to remind everyone it is still on the way to zero. He is the man who has been warning of Bitcoin’s demise since the time of its trading at under the price of a good dinner out. And, rather awkwardly for his thesis, he’s also the father of a son who followed none of his advice, went all in on Bitcoin and has fared pretty well since.
This is an examination of his own skepticism over Bitcoin, his particular arguments, the accuracy of his predictions, and why, despite a history of Bitcoin predictions that his own detractors have gleefully chronicled, tweet by tweet, nobody ever stops reading when he says anything about Bitcoin.
Who Is Peter Schiff, and Why Does Anyone Still Listen?
Before you can grasp the significance of Peter Schiff’s stance on Bitcoin, you will want to get a handle on why he has an audience in the first place. Schiff isn’t a mere finance blogger who stumbled upon cryptocurrencies as a way to make a quick buck. Over the past 30 years, he established his reputation as a stockbroker, economic forecaster, and unabashed apologist for the Austrian school of economics, the free-market school that has long been skeptical of central banking, credit expansion, and everything in between.
Schiff’s career began at Shearson Lehman Brothers in the early 1990s, where he started his career, followed by founding Euro Pacific Capital, eventually sold now known as Alliance Global Partners, and then in 2010, the precious-metals dealer SchiffGold. He also runs The Peter Schiff Show, a daily podcast and radio show which is his primary medium for market commentary, and more recently, Bitcoin takes. Much of his worldview is shaped by his father, Irwin Schiff, who was a dedicated tax protester whose years of court battles with the IRS ultimately landed him in jail. That family history is reflected in the way Peter speaks about government, debt and monetary policy and much more. He often refers to Austrian economics as being right, and Keynesian as more superstitious and the Federal Reserve as an institution that is more responsible for bad booms than good ones.
Why this is relevant in a Bitcoin discussion is easy to explain: Schiff was one of the first people to predict the financial crisis of 2008 and the first to do so publicly and vocally. Arthur Laffer is a supply-side economist, and in a December 2006 debate on Fox Business, Schiff predicted that real estate prices were going to return to earth. He was rejected right away by Laffer, who said that the economy was in its best shape ever, and who is known to have bet a penny on him being wrong. The argument was developed in Schiff’s 2007 book titled Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse, which predicted the crisis months earlier when Lehman Brothers collapsed. As the crisis unfolded pretty much exactly as Schiff had predicted, reels of his clips, in which he was talking over and clearly the butt of other guests’ jokes, began to circulate online under the banner Peter Schiff Was Right, with the videos later gaining millions of views. He subsequently served as an economic adviser to Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign and in 2010 ran for the Republican nomination in the Senate for Connecticut without success.
It’s the credibility bank Schiff has relied on since then, especially when he has a say to say about Bitcoin. It has to be said that his subsequent predictions haven’t been as successful as the prediction of a housing crash, that he’s been predicting an imminent dollar and bond-market collapse long before the last crisis, and that the crisis he refers to as worse than 2008 has still yet to happen on his timeline. But it was a real call, it was a public call and it was made in opposition to the consensus of its time. After all, when Schiff declares a popular asset is a bubble, many people are drawn to him, even those who don’t ultimately agree with him.
Where Peter Schiff’s Bitcoin Skepticism Began
Schiff’s skepticism of Bitcoin isn’t a new position that he’s just entered out of a poor deal. It’s been since 2013, when Bitcoin was still trading for less than $500 and most of Wall Street still didn’t know what it was. During the year and the next, Schiff repeatedly ridiculed the concept and compared it to the tulip mania of the 1600s, as well as what he termed a modern Ponzi scheme, an asset whose value is solely based on the expectation that someone else will pay more for it at a later time.
That comparison set the tone for everything that followed. Outlets that have followed his remarks have marked over two dozen times since 2013 that he has been able to say outright that Bitcoin is dead or dying, which is more than any other major pessimist about the cryptocurrency has done, even economist Steve Hanke and Warren Buffett, who have each made a well-publicized case against the currency. Schiff’s overall score is not even close to either of their scores.
Some of his weak calls are good to study, because the truth is that the numbers don’t lie. Back in 2017 when Bitcoin made history and reached $20,000 for the first time, Schiff predicted it would go down to zero. He has stated categorically that Bitcoin’s price is not going to hit $50,000 in 2019. It arrived a little more than a year later and has continued to rise from there.
This concept turned into a lasting statement in an October 2017 article called Digital Fool’s Gold on the SchiffGold website. The piece deserves to be understood in some detail, since Schiff has repeated some form of it, nearly verbatim, every year since. His thesis: the physical attributes of gold make it valuable. It’s found in jewellery, electronics, dentistry, the aerospace industry, and as an accepted currency for thousands of years in all the cultures it’s been through. He has said Bitcoin was designed to be the scarcity and portability of gold, minus any tangible value that makes it have a floor price. He also attacked a major argument that has been raised against Bitcoin, which is that money has no intrinsic value either, so why does Bitcoin have any? Fiat money, he replied, has government support and is legal tender behind it, people have to have dollars to pay their taxes or they face prison time, so there is a minimum demand for dollars, regardless of the opinions of anybody on the currency’s soundness. Bitcoin, in his parlance, doesn’t have any of the tangible uses of gold or the legal armor of fiat. He said people have lost their faith in that market, and nothing lies below. Since then, he has been in almost every Bitcoin debate, and not digital gold, but digital fools’ gold, has been following him.
The Core Arguments Behind Peter Schiff’s Bitcoin Criticism
Even 10 years later, Schiff’s playbook hasn’t evolved significantly, despite a radical transformation of the market in which he operates. It’s OK to put in the actual arguments in full, because they’re more specific and more consistent than the old man yells at crypto argument.
The first and most often repeated is the intrinsic value argument mentioned above: Gold can remain useful even if it is not wanted as the medium of exchange, as it can be worn, constructed or soldered to a circuit board. Schiff believes that there is no bottom to Bitcoin’s price because it has no function except that of being purchased and sold. On the Bankless podcast, he stated as much, explaining that Bitcoin’s transferability is a negative characteristic, not a positive one, because you can send it when you want to send it, and you can send nothing, unlike gold, which has to stay physical just because it’s only about physical properties. He’s likened owning Bitcoin to having a digital photograph of a hamburger: it can be traded back and forth but cannot be eaten, and, as he says, that will catch up with you at the price.
The second argument is about cash flow and it has been the focus of his current battle with Strategy’s Michael Saylor. Saylor has likened owning bitcoin to owning a rare skyscraper in a great place. There is Schiff’s rebuttal, and that is that a skyscraper generates rent each and every month, whereas a Bitcoin holder only receives rent if another person agrees to purchase the Bitcoin at a higher price later on. No harvest, no income, no production but only the next sale. With no new buyers, in his words, the price is under no pressure.
Third is the tokenized nothing line that Schiff repeated in his debate with economist and author Saifedean Ammous last February in the context of the Bitcoin Standard. But with an opponent who knew the argument of any money, Schiff was not going to budge from his original thesis: Scarcity is not a sufficient basis for value. Yes, something can have a price, he argued, but it doesn’t have a value, and a number of times he has proposed that the modern sucker is the Bitcoin purchaser.
Then there’s the sustainability argument, which is really just the Ponzi framing dressed in more careful language. In other words, anything that is not earning a return on investment and has no output can only appreciate in value when more money is added to it than taken away. In his opinion, sooner or later the influx of new buyers will end, and there will not be enough demand left to sustain the price as it fell. During an especially revealing podcast discussion with crypto commentator Michael Jerome, Schiff even shifted his own perspective on this point: He didn’t make a mistake that Bitcoin was going to fall apart, he said, he just underestimated how long the public’s gullibility would last. He described the entire run as a gigantic pump-and-dump.
Last, but far from least, there is volatility, and that’s what Schiff considers to be disqualifying any asset that is promoting itself as a store of value or an inflation hedger. In his terminology, a true safe haven is one that doesn’t decline in value by a third or half, even in the middle of a crisis, in just a few months. This argument only escalated in 2025 and 2026, when gold and silver both reached new peaks, while Bitcoin, by contrast, struggled to follow suit, an imbalance Schiff has been able to build on in his latest argument and one that’s worth considering on its own merits.
Gold vs. Bitcoin: The Heart of the Debate
When Schiff says anything about bitcoin, it always comes back to gold after all, that’s what he’s been selling for his entire career. The central theme of his argument is simple: money must be supported by an object with real, tangible demand that’s not related to its function as money. After some five thousand years of valuable status in essentially all the cultures that are documented, gold checks that box. In his eyes, Bitcoin has one thing: scarcity, and one thing only, for value, being the only thing he has, is the hard-coded 21 million coin supply, which isn’t the same thing. There are many things in the world that are both scarce and worthless.
That is why Schiff says the whole digital gold marketing scheme is misleading at best and lacks the credibility of its gold origins. He has made this case with a specific testable, provable claim: If Bitcoin truly were a digital gold, it should behave like gold, particularly in the sort of macro stress that motivates investors to run to safe assets. Both metals rallied to fresh record highs in late 2025, as safe-haven assets are expected to do, and gold has now surpassed $3,200 per ounce, with Schiff predicting that it will reach $5,000 or more in the next two years. Bitcoin, however, was the other side of the coin, struggling just as it was being tested by the same conditions it was designed to withstand during that time. Bitcoin malfunctioned on the launch pad, while precious metals were taking off, Schiff said.
Bitcoin’s defenders have an actual rebuttal here, which should be included in this conversation as much as Schiff’s. But analysts who question his framing add that Bitcoin and gold have traditionally been trailing each other and not one and the same, with the larger price swings being made later in the cycle, as in 2016-2017 and again in 2020-2021. If the latter is true, then Bitcoin’s recent slowdown following gold’s 2025 performance is not a sign of the end of the digital-gold thesis, but rather it is where Bitcoin is in the cycle. In a broader context, Bitcoin has been the world’s best-performing major asset since August 2020, and that it is not only the worst-performing asset on shorter time frames to judge it, particularly a long-duration monetary asset, that is perhaps a more telling point. Whether it’s a fair way to measure Bitcoin, or, as Schiff argues, a conveniently cherry-picked start date that’s been selected for its favorable numbers, is really a live debate, one neither side will want to settle anytime soon.
A Decade of Wrong Calls: Peter Schiff’s Bitcoin Price Predictions
Here’s where the numbers do most of the talking. Schiff’s actual price calls on bitcoin have been off for more than a decade, and the further you delve into the specifics, the further it is off.
Let’s get it started with the best of the hits: The never $50,000 call from 2019 was totally delivered and then blown by in about a year. The heading-to-zero call was a call made in 2017, the same 12 months Bitcoin first marked $20,000. In March 2023, when a Bitcoin investor commented that he was happy he had purchased the cryptocurrency, Schiff merely replied, It’s still going to zero, just travelling a long road. Later in the same year, as regional banking institutions were rocked by the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, he told Bitcoin investors straight to sell.
As Bitcoin grew into a trillion dollar asset with exchanges and corporate treasuries, predictions did not abate. Schiff lowered his downside price target to $75,000 in August 2025 when Bitcoin’s price was under $110,000. In a sly dig at Michael Saylor, who also warned of a worse 2026, a claim the Winklevoss twins later issued a rebuttal to publicly, the warning came after Bitcoin dropped by approximately 42 percent in gold terms and 30 percent in dollar terms from its peaks since September. A few days later, when Bitcoin dipped below the $100,000 milestone it had surged to in December 2024, Schiff poked the punters who had been celebrating the milestone a year ago, saying that gold had risen by about 60 percent during the same period. By February 2026, with the price of Bitcoin down 45% from its previous all-time high of $126,000, Schiff was again on record declaring that Bitcoin would eventually hit a bottom of zero, and that it was “near-zero” for anybody who’d invested in the highest.
One of the more interesting instances in Schiff’s entire Bitcoin commentary record happened that same month. In one interview, he spoke down a bit after a public argument with Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, acknowledging that institutional demand surged to support Bitcoin, but that it still might be virtually worthless within a century. In a separate interview, about the same time, he resumed his tougher stance, telling commentator Michael Jerome that he still believed an eventual crash to zero would come, and that he himself was not entirely wrong about that, but that he was darned wrong about how gullible the public would be, and how the public was being played for a gigantic pump-and-dump. Two interviews in quick succession telling two slightly different takes on the same belief, which, in microcosm, is precisely how his Bitcoin rant has worked for more than 10 years.
Come June 2026, when Bitcoin was well into the low $60 thousands, Schiff was returning to his previous practice of setting firm levels to look for on a downside basis: $30,000 first, then $20,000, both of which were presented as evidence of a thesis he’s been advocating since Bitcoin was trading in the hundreds of dollars. If that’s counting by the number of times this type of thing has been reported, then Schiff has outdeclared Steve Hanke and Warren Buffett by a wide margin, having been the first to pronounce Bitcoin’s death, in some form or another, over two dozen times since 2013.
None of this is a problem for Schiff, and it’s important to listen to why. So far, Bitcoin has been massively outperforming pretty much anything since his original prediction, which is why critics have simply been pointing out that he picked the wrong time to predict, and Schiff has countered by declaring that they chose the period before the solution they were hoping for. Get the comparison far enough out and they can make their speculative bubble appear to be spectacular while it’s still in the making, he has contended, and the test only arrives when it’s over. Well, to make the chart work in five years, you’ll have to go 20 years back, in a decade, you’ll have to go 25 years, at some point, he asked, you’ll have to go back twenty years to press me on this point again.
A philosophical debate about evaluating a nascent and still volatile asset class is pretty fair. But it doesn’t remove the actual, dated, dollar cap that just never came through: the $50,000 limit that was never even reached, the zero that never materialized, the breaking of the zero, the breaking of the record and the breaking again of the record, all within months of its record-breaking declaration. Be it the basis he’s constructed for his larger argument about Bitcoin as sound money, or the track record he has in the brief history of his price calls, Schiff has actually got it about as bad as it gets in modern-day financial commentary, and even those who are on his side of the gold argument tacitly concede that much.
When the Skeptic’s Own Son Bet Against Him
Any sort of single most human second in Schiff’s decade-long feud with Bitcoin must pass through the Schiff family group chat. Bitcoin was near $50,000 in price in March 2021 and Schiff posted on Twitter that his son, Spencer, had sold all my silver and shifted all of his assets to Bitcoin. Peter’s public response was a combination of shocked and stoic. He termed his son a brainwashed kid, had a laugh about the prospect of having to disinherit him of his eventual inheritance, and said Spencer was going to hold “to infinity or bust. In fact, there’s a very funny backstory there, too: according to some sources, Peter himself had first proposed purchasing Spencer Bitcoin as a birthday gift years before this made it a public feud.
It got a lot of attention on the internet. Bitcoin investor Anthony Pompliano lashed out at Schiff, saying at least one member of his family was making money that year. In a real poll on Twitter months ago, in which Schiff questioned his followers about which they believed in more: his 30 years of professional investing or his then 18-year-old son’s intuition, 81% voted for the boy. Adam Back, head of Blockstream, said, half jokingly, that gold had its uses and was a late-stage hedge to Bitcoin, the newer digital option.
The story doesn’t neatly translate into a moral and it’s okay to admit that because it’s not a story that is as neat as a tapestry as it can be. Then in 2023, Spencer, in a strange moment of being in sync with his father, briefly expressed some of his bearishness of his own, dismissing the popular coming Great Depression theory as fearmongering and separately, stating that his own estimate for the price of Bitcoin might be drifting closer to zero over the next few years. By 2025, the family’s feud is continuing and the next time reported, Spencer was still determined to make his 2020 wager, and still holding onto multiples of what he had invested, while Peter continued to poke fun at Bitcoin publicly on X. Curious what your own entry price would look like today? Our Bitcoin calculator does that math in seconds.
Whether this is a true statement or not, the split of the Schiff family is a remarkably straightforward distillation of the entire Bitcoin controversy: Two well-informed individuals, with blood ties, viewing the exact same asset, and arriving at completely different conclusions, with both having significant money at stake.
The Peter Schiff vs. Michael Saylor Feud
There is no single relationship that has marked Schiff’s running commentary on Bitcoin in 2026 quite like his battle with Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), where the company became the biggest corporate Bitcoin holder on the planet. The controversy over such a troll-fueled argument has now made it into a formal academic paper studying rival theories of monetary value, a rare thing for a Twitter spat.
The two have clashed over almost everything, but their feuds have been most noticeable regarding how to gauge Bitcoin’s success and what exactly you’re supposed to get from holding it. As part of that exchange, Schiff played with his five-year chart, which showed that Bitcoin had increased by about 12 percent over that period, while the Nasdaq rose by 57.4 percent, gold by 163 percent and silver by 181 percent. Saylor wrote back that Schiff was being sneaky to shift the start date to make numbers work so he could claim Bitcoin was the top performer among all major assets in the world, and challenged him to a public debate, rather than cherry-picking when it was at its lowest.
One of the more important exchanges of the year was triggered by their disagreement over Saylor’s skyscraper analogy, the concept that Bitcoin, like a scarce, well-located real estate property, has the potential to grow in value just because it is scarce and desirable. A skyscraper, Schiff’s counter, takes in rent every month, no matter what happens to its resale value. Bitcoin collects nothing. For Saylor, the scarcity, along with the credibility, is sufficient on its own to draw the comparison. For Schiff, the absence of any cash flow is the ball game, and scarcity is no cure.
As this focus on Strategy’s business model intensified, so did the fight. The STRC preferred-stock product offered by the company, which pays 11.5 percent in dividends, is a centralized Ponzi, according to Schiff, who openly implored the SEC to probe the marketing of such an offering to investors. He has charged Saylor directly that he had defrauded him and explicitly stated that he had not sued Saylor for defamation for such a claim, and dismissed a new prediction from Saylor that Bitcoin could someday climb to $10 million as delusional. In mid-2026, when Strategy announced a new policy of selling some of its Bitcoin stash to help fund its preferred dividends and debt repayments, Schiff saw that as a blessing in disguise, the company had quietly transitioned from being the largest corporate buyer of Bitcoin to a potential source of ongoing selling pressure.
There is an important but real financial issue that is being debated in public under the guise of an insult: what happens to a business that is stretched thin by borrowing a lot to purchase an asset without cash flow, if that asset remains cheap for a long period? The question hasn’t been put aside for most of 2026, and it won’t be until Bitcoin’s price makes a significant turn in one direction or the other.
Euro Pacific Bank and the Credibility Question
The saga of Schiff’s own banking issues is never far from the mind of his critics and when one mentions his credibility in general, it is invariably accompanied by the banking issues.
Schiff was the founder of Euro Pacific Bank, a full-reserve banking firm, and eventually obtained a license in Puerto Rico, expanded to about 15,000 accounts, and operated there until 2017. A Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement task force comprising tax officials from the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada and the Netherlands launched an investigation in 2020 against the bank over suspected tax evasion and money laundering via offshore schemes, dubbed Operation Atlantis. On June 30, 2022, two years later, the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCFI) of Puerto Rico placed Euro Pacific under suspension due to low capitalization and compliance controls. At the time, Commissioner Natalia Zequeira Diaz called the bank a long history of noncompliance.
This is a very different version of events, according to Schiff. He has said his company did not engage in any criminal activity and that it was a misunderstanding regarding capital requirements for the business got him and his staff caught off guard because they were new to Puerto Rico’s regulatory regime. He claimed that his deal was rejected by regulators who were willing to invest more than the minimum requirements, just as he sued the IRS and OCIF in Puerto Rico, saying they were collaborating to close down the bank and tarnish his reputation, as this case continues to be litigated. He has also won at least one clear legal battle relating to the controversy: In 2022, an Australian court found a 60 Minutes segment about him to be defamatory, and the segment was subsequently deleted and Schiff paid a settlement.
It’s not really about Bitcoin. But it’s part of the whole story that people are looking for when they go to Google and search for Peter Schiff bitcoin criticism, and it’s a legitimate question for readers considering who they should trust, particularly when it comes to sound money and financial trust.
Where Peter Schiff’s Bitcoin Commentary Stands in 2026
Focus on this year in particular, and the trend is nearly identical. He wrote on Monday that Bitcoin’s good news phase had come to an end, noting that 2025 had seen all kinds of bullish catalysts, a crypto-friendly White House, rumblings about a national Bitcoin reserve, and consistent spot ETF inflows, yet Bitcoin was still in the red on New Year’s Eve. He’s presented it as the warning sign of what’s to come, as gold appreciated 64 percent, silver more than doubled, the Dow rose 13 percent, the S&P 500 index jumped 16.4 percent, and the Nasdaq index jumped more than 20 percent. As he puts it, Bitcoin was supposed to be the sole asset to benefit from every event of the year, and he was right.
The remainder of the year was a more consistent tick-tock. He publicly disagreed with Fundstrat’s Tom Lee in January about whether gold’s historic rally was bullish for Bitcoin, arguing that Bitcoin’s rally was real gains, but looked impressive in comparison to gold’s stagnation at the time, and that gold’s breakout from its range into 2025-into-2026 was proof that Bitcoin wasn’t “digital gold” to begin with. He had two official moderated debates with Saifedean Ammous on the merits of tokenized gold vs Bitcoin standard in February, and separately with Binance founder Changpeng Zhao at the time, before briefly warming up his near-term outlook before cooling it off dramatically in later February interviews. His quest with Michael Saylor over Strategy’s business model was now more of a full-time job by spring. By early summer, when Bitcoin was dropping back to the low $60,000s, Schiff was once again setting target prices for the price to fall to, first $30,000 and then $20,000, all of which he was claiming as signs of his arguments dating back to 2013.
This year, he has also remained quite busy with politics. Schiff has taken the Trump administration’s Strategic Bitcoin Reserve head-on, once joking that he was launching his own Strategic Reserve and stating that anyone wondering if his account had been hacked was just being overly sensitive. He has monitored the reserve’s performance against a scenario of allocation to gold, claiming at one point that it was declining more than 12 percent when the same funds were invested in gold instead, and that it is possibly a “Bitcoin bailout fund” that leverages taxpayer funds and is a “scam” designed to attract retail investors. He was even more explicit in a January interview with Tucker Carlson, where he affirmed that he did not have the evidence but claimed that early-day Bitcoin investors used their profits to help build political influence for him and others, including the president himself.
While writing this at the end of July 2026, Bitcoin is currently trading at the mid-$60,000 mark, having fallen well from the record-high price of about $126,000 it reached in the fall of 2025, and gold is now comfortably above $3,200 an ounce, close to all-time highs as well. That’s the kind of chart Schiff has been waiting years to call out and he has been calling out the right chart and at the right time since that pullback started. We broke down the full story behind that slide separately, if you want more than just Schiff’s version of events.
What Investors Can Actually Take From Schiff’s Bitcoin Skepticism
Roughly speaking, no matter one’s own views on Bitcoin, there is some merit in Schiff’s criticism. The problem is to distinguish the show-stoppers from the show-stoppers.
It is an asset that generates no income and has no use case on its own and is held solely on the basis of continued buying interest this is a core structural point that merits serious consideration, and not just because Schiff, as he admits, is certain this isn’t a place for serious money, but because most professional allocators would agree it is a risk to size around sensibly. His running Strawman argument about how Strategy is leveraged is also a useful one, and regardless of whether you believe in Bitcoin for any other reason: If the price of an asset is weak, and that asset generates no cash flow, then a company that borrows heavily to acquire it is making significant, measurable risk.
Meanwhile, the guy’s track record with calling prices is a helpful reminder to take out-of-context predictions with a grain of salt, both ways. An economist with one real winning call on one big event decades ago is not necessarily correct about a wholly different asset just because he’s outspoken and consistent about it, and that applies as much to the bullish seven-figure price targets that some of the most fervent Bitcoin advocates have been throwing about. No one participating in this decades-long battle, regardless of their point of view, has a pristine record of predicting Bitcoin’s price over any brief period.
The more useful thing is the dull one: know what you have, know why you have it, and size it such that you feel you can live with it if the other side whether Schiff or Saylor or someone else altogether–is right about it. Few financial specialists suggest anybody put all of their loan funds in gold or Bitcoin. But perhaps the most telling statistic in this entire debate is the fact that reasonable and informed, closely related individuals can sit across the dinner table from each other, viewing the same specific asset and be in completely different camps.
The Bottom Line
So Peter Schiff’s battle against Bitcoin has been going on for over 12 years, and no respite is in sight. He’s been wrong, and on public record, more often and more emphatically than almost anyone else in finance about specific price levels and he’s established a platform based on never backing down from the argument as a whole. On the way, he’s been accused in court of breaching bank regulations to great effect, lost his own son his bet, and is in an open, ongoing feud with the most vocal Bitcoin bull in corporate America.
All that doesn’t have any effect on his mind and it probably never will. Bitcoin will remain volatile, gold will remain gold and somewhere in between the next big sell-off, Peter Schiff will be typing.
