The feud is hardly new, but the volume is way up. Precious-metals partisans tout millennia of monetary history, broad liquidity, and a tangible hedge that doesn’t need a password. Bitcoiners counter with a fixed 21 million cap, fast settlement, and global portability. On social media, specifically X, the argument has elevated well beyond the standard Peter Schiff posts.

Underneath the barbs is rare agreement on the diagnosis: fiat debasement. Where they split is the cure. Some hardcore precious metal fans label bitcoin (BTC) a speculative risk with custody and hack headaches; a certain amount of BTC advocates call gold an anachronism exposed to paper-market games and storage friction.

The recent tape added kindling. Gold’s run into the $4,376 gave bullion accounts fresh talking points, while bitcoin’s consolidation from a record above $126,000 handed metal loyalists a chance to gloat. Crypto voices “zoomed out,” pointing to BTC’s multiyear performance and exchange-traded fund (ETF) and bitcoin treasury-driven adoption.

Influencers amplified every jab. Posts from perennial gold critic Peter Schiff drew swarms of BTC replies, while bitcoin-first commentators leaned on charts of the BTC/gold ratio and self-custody advantages to argue that the digital asset is the superior free-market instrument.

Beneath the trolling, the core claims are consistent. Gold boosters cite low supply growth and centuries of trust; they also argue that “elastic” gold mining still keeps inflation modest over time. BTC partisans highlight halving-driven issuance declines, programmatic transparency, and the ease of verifying authenticity on a public ledger.

Confiscation and manipulation remain flashpoints. Metals users reference the practicality of holding coins and bars; bitcoiners point to unmediated self-custody and the resilience of onchain settlement. Both sides agree that intermediaries — banks, brokers, or centralized exchanges — introduce risk that the other tribe will happily spotlight.

Into this tempest stepped investment manager Lawrence Lepard, a long-time gold advocate who in recent years added bitcoin to his “hard-asset” playbook. On Oct. 18, Lepard fired back at critics on X who, in his view, smeared bitcoiners as “frauds,” answering with sharp retorts, blocks, and a firm defense of BTC’s role alongside bullion. Bitcoin supporters praised the pushback; detractors dismissed the statements.

The exchange crystallized a broader undercurrent: many allocators now hold both assets, even as online tribes posture for purity. Lepard’s stance — that owning some of each hedges policy risk — landed with investors who see free-market money coming in multiple forms, not a single winner-takes-all bet.

Context mattered. By mid-October, gold had pressed into new highs while bitcoin gave back a slice of its early-month rise over the $126,000 zone, handing each faction fresh ammo. Yet the central takeaway for portfolio builders is less theatrical: sizing and custody choices generally matter more than winning the meme war.

A quick scorecard of talking points shows the stalemate but ongoing heated debate. Metals bring history, physical scarcity, and deep, multipurpose demand; bitcoin brings hard caps, divisibility, and borderless settlement. Both are market-driven tools that thrive when confidence in policy wanes. The rest is branding — and influencers on X are very good at branding.

If there’s a unifying thread in this loud feud, it is that free-market hedges can coexist. Whether one prefers vaulted bars or self-custodied keys, the common opponent identified across timelines is unchecked currency dilution. That, more than the latest ratio chart, explains the energy on display.

• Why did the gold-vs- bitcoin debate spike on X? New highs for gold and a post-peak pause for bitcoin amplified long-standing arguments about hard assets.
• What set off Lawrence Lepard’s replies? Lepard pushed back at posts he saw as smearing bitcoiners, defending BTC while reaffirming a hard-asset thesis.
• Is this an either-or choice for investors? Many allocators hold both, using metals and BTC as complementary free-market hedges against policy risk.
• What are the core arguments? Gold leans on history and tangibility; bitcoin leans on fixed supply, portability, and transparent issuance.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。