**Written by: **Wu Says Blockchain

During the 2025 Binance Blockchain Week, Binance founder CZ engaged in a heated debate with Peter Schiff, CEO and Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Asset Management, regarding the value and future potential of Bitcoin and tokenized gold.

Peter argued that tokenized gold, backed by actual gold reserves, offers greater stability and practical application value; whereas CZ maintained that Bitcoin, as a decentralized and borderless digital asset, despite its significant price volatility, possesses unique technological advantages and market demand. Additionally, the two discussed various aspects such as the payment functions, investment value, and underlying technological differences between gold and Bitcoin, ultimately concluding with both guests firmly standing by their respective viewpoints.

The content reflects the personal opinions of the guests and does not represent Wu Says' views. The audio transcription was completed by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the complete podcast on Xiaoyuzhou, YT, etc.

Peter Introduces the Practical Application of Tokenized Gold

CZ: First of all, Peter, thank you very much for being here. I feel a bit like the host today, so I want to make the opening a bit more civilized and thank you for coming. I think it takes courage to come on stage in such an obviously biased environment towards me.

Peter: There are actually some people here who support me. While they may not agree with me on Bitcoin, they do agree with me on most other things. Of course, I also appreciate your invitation to be here. At least you are willing to face me on stage — I have wanted to debate Michael Saylor for years, but he has always been too scared to come. But you have no problem at all.

CZ: Alright, now I want to give you a chance first. I know you are currently working on a tokenized gold project, right?

Peter: It all started from that podcast. I talked about tokenized gold on a crypto podcast, and on my website, you can purchase physical gold and silver, which we will store for you. These gold and silver are fully segregated and stored independently; they are "allocated gold," not "unallocated gold," so users truly own them, just stored in a vault.

Ultimately, users can withdraw gold in two ways: one is to sell it directly for dollars; the other is to withdraw it as physical items, like gold bars or coins, in any specification. Alternatively, you can choose to withdraw it as tokens. If we can get the tokens listed on exchanges in the future, you can also store them in your wallet or transfer them to trading platforms. The tokens represent ownership of the gold; they are like a ticket for a coat in a wardrobe — they are not the coat itself, but they represent that you own it and can redeem it at any time. Tokenized gold works the same way; you own the gold in the vault, and the token is the proof.

If you want, you can transfer the entire token or a portion of it, as the tokens are divisible. After transferring to someone else, that person then owns that portion of the gold. The gold remains in the vault, but ownership can be freely transferred, allowing the token to serve as a medium of exchange. This way, you have a currency unit backed by physical gold, which has store of value capabilities, as anyone can withdraw the corresponding gold at any time.

Tokenized gold makes gold easier to transport, more divisible, and more liquid, enhancing all the properties of gold as a currency while not losing its most important characteristic — it is a store of value because its value comes from the gold itself.

CZ: So you mean that in terms of currency usage scenarios, tokenized gold is actually superior to gold itself in aspects like divisibility, transferability, portability, and as a medium of exchange, right?

Peter: Yes, in terms of currency use. Of course, if you are a jeweler or a chip manufacturer who needs to use real gold, then you must withdraw the physical form. But when used as currency, tokenized gold is indeed more convenient. Just like how blacksmiths used to store gold and issue IOUs, which became currency due to their convenience. The reason early government-issued currency had value was that it was backed by gold. But today’s fiat currency is no longer backed by any asset; its value relies entirely on confidence. Tokenized gold brings all of this into the digital world, eliminating the need for face-to-face exchanges of paper notes, only requiring digital transfer of proof.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is more like fiat currency because it has no backing. The value of tokenized gold comes from the gold itself, while the value of Bitcoin comes from market confidence. If people believe it has value, they will buy it.

CZ: We will delve deeper into Bitcoin later. But for now, it seems we at least agree on one point: digital gold and tokenized gold indeed outperform physical gold in many ways, as they possess transferable and divisible characteristics on-chain, provided that the gold reserves are real.

CZ Demonstrates Physical Gold on Stage, Raising Questions of Verifiability

CZ: Let’s talk about gold. I brought a box; could the staff bring it on stage? This box is quite heavy. Inside is something with Kyrgyz writing on it, which I brought back from Kyrgyzstan, along with a certification document. This was given to me recently by an important local figure, purely by chance. Let’s take it out and have a look; it’s heavy and has a serial number. You can try it; it’s quite heavy. Do you think it’s real or fake?

Peter: I’m not sure; let me take a look at its appearance. My bracelet is pure gold, and the color of this gold bar looks a bit different. However, I can’t be 100% sure; maybe it’s not real.

CZ: But it was given to me by a very important person.

Peter: The issue is that this is not a mint I’m familiar with. The key to gold is whether the issuer is trustworthy; if it’s from a globally recognized mint, they have a reputation to uphold, and you know the gold is real. But I’ve never seen this mint’s mark, so I might need to do a test to confirm whether it’s real gold. Its color does differ from my bracelet.

CZ: It could also be that your bracelet has a color discrepancy; I’m not sure.

Peter: The question is, are you going to give it to me? If you’re going to give it to me, then of course I hope it’s real; but if you’re not planning to give it, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s real or fake.

CZ: How much is one kilogram of gold worth right now?

Peter: Currently, gold is about $4,200 per ounce.

CZ: Oh, then I might not be able to give you the whole thing; I can at most cut off a small piece for you.

Peter: That’s why we need tokenization — if gold were tokenized, you could easily transfer half of it to me at any time. Our company, Schiff Gold, actually sells small denomination coins, so you don’t have to guess their authenticity because they come from trusted mints, and you can tell at a glance whether they have been tampered with.

CZ: I want to give it to you, but I’m not sure if you can take it out of the country.

Peter: I can put it in my luggage; no one should care.

CZ: Are you sure? In some countries, if you don’t declare it, you can get arrested for carrying gold bars.

Peter: Then I’ll just say you gave it to me.

CZ: Then I might be in big trouble. But this is physical gold; it is indeed real, given to me by the President of Kyrgyzstan.

Peter: Then it has emotional value now; you definitely don’t want to give it to me.

CZ: Especially after our discussion just now, I have a new understanding of its "fundamental value." But the point is — if I give you a Bitcoin right now, we can immediately verify the transaction. And even with tokenized gold, you can also verify it instantly when you transfer it to someone else.

Peter: Yes, tokenized gold can do that too.

CZ Believes Bitcoin is Intangible but Valuable, While Peter Argues it has "No Practical Use"

CZ: Now I want to respond to your earlier point about "Bitcoin not being based on any physical entity." You use an iPhone, right? You certainly use the internet, and you use platforms like X (Twitter), Google, Facebook, etc. The internet itself is virtual, with no physical entity. But X still has significant value because it has practical utility. The same goes for the internet — it is virtual, yet it still holds immense value.

Bitcoin is actually the same. I don’t know how many people here truly understand: there is no physical entity called "Bitcoin" on the blockchain; it is not a physical object nor a digital form of an independent entity. There are only transaction records on the chain. When people say, "I’m sending you 1 Bitcoin," they are actually just adding a new ledger record that states, "I transferred you 1 Bitcoin." But Bitcoin does not actually move from one place to another.

We know that an address has 1 Bitcoin because the system traverses all on-chain transactions, calculating all inflows and outflows to ultimately arrive at a balance. It does not exist in any specific location. But that does not mean it lacks value.

Google is virtual, X is virtual, but they both hold great value. Value never depends on physical form. Even gold, the portion that is truly used in industry — such as chip production — accounts for a very small percentage. People assign high value to gold because it is scarce and a precious metal, not because of its industrial uses.

Peter: First of all, intangible assets can certainly have value. Companies have goodwill, which is also an intangible asset. But that’s not the reason I believe Bitcoin has no value. My point is that it has no practical use. I can transfer it to you, and you can transfer it to someone else, but aside from the transfer itself, it has no functionality. The system design is indeed clever, but when I transfer Bitcoin to you, I’m not "giving you" anything.

When I transfer tokenized gold to you, I am transferring ownership of the gold itself, and its value comes from its utility as a metal. Gold possesses characteristics that other metals cannot replace; many industries must use gold and cannot substitute it with copper or other metals. These uses give gold lasting value, while its supply is limited and production grows slowly, determining its high price.

Additionally, gold is an important reserve asset for central banks; they need it to support the value of their currency, which is also a use of gold that further influences its price. Gold does not corrode and does not lose value over time. The gold I own today will still exist a thousand or ten thousand years from now, and it is fundamentally no different from ancient gold.

Therefore, the price of gold represents the present value of all its uses from now into the future, something that other perishable and consumable goods cannot achieve. The uniqueness of gold makes it a true long-term store of value because, whether now or in the future, there will always be a need for gold.

Debate on "Whether Bitcoin is Money"

CZ: Recently, when the price of gold has risen, does that mean many central banks are printing more money to buy gold?

Peter: Central banks have always been printing money, which is the source of inflation.

CZ: You mentioned practical value earlier, so you also acknowledge that Bitcoin's value does not have to rely on physical form, right? It doesn’t need to be tangible.

Peter: It must have real utility; it must be able to be used for something.

CZ: But the industrial use of gold is not the main source of its high value. The value of gold comes from its scarcity; it is a precious metal. And Bitcoin also has a wide range of uses; it is not just for payments. Bitcoin is a complete industry; it is a new form of currency technology.

Peter: It is not a new currency technology because it is not being used as currency at all. It is not truly money because it is not a commodity. The definition of money should be the most liquid commodity, and Bitcoin does not meet that standard, even though the government may classify it as an asset.

CZ: Well, different people will have different definitions of "money" and "value." But Bitcoin is now a $2 to $2.3 trillion asset and is still growing.

Peter: Bitcoin does have a price; no one denies that. But the reason it has a price is that people are willing to buy it, and many holders are unwilling to sell, believing that the price will continue to rise. However, this does not mean it has intrinsic value — it only has a price due to speculative demand. Bitcoin is not used as a currency; it is a speculative digital asset. In my view, people "collect" Bitcoin because they believe that in the future, someone will be willing to pay a higher price.

CZ: I think your definition of "currency" is very narrow; it is more of your personal understanding and the traditional definition by the government. If we were to ask the audience here how many people think Bitcoin is a currency — many hands would surely go up. Of course, this scenario is not entirely fair, as the people here are already more inclined towards the crypto space. But the point is, there are indeed many people who view Bitcoin as a currency. As for whether we should call it "currency" and how to define it, that can be discussed further.

Peter: But no goods or services are priced in Bitcoin, so Bitcoin is not a unit of account. Right?

CZ: Prices are relative. We can also express the price of the dollar in Bitcoin.

Peter: That’s just an exchange rate. I’m talking about people in the real world selling goods and services, including those who hire labor; no one prices things in a fixed amount of Bitcoin. That situation does not exist. Even if someone accepts Bitcoin as payment, their wages are priced in dollars or euros, and then they calculate how much Bitcoin is needed for equivalent payment when it comes time to pay. So Bitcoin is not a unit of account and is not a real medium of exchange. Most Bitcoin transactions occur on exchanges like Binance, where people are just buying, selling, and speculating, not using it to purchase goods. Bitcoin is not a unit of account and cannot serve as a store of value because you cannot store something you do not truly own.

CZ: Price volatility does not mean it cannot be used for payment. I received my salary in Bitcoin back in 2014.

Peter: How much was your salary?

CZ: It wasn’t high at the time, around $100,000.

Peter: No, I’m asking if your salary was fixed in terms of the amount of Bitcoin.

CZ: According to what you just said, we would recalculate the equivalent amount every month…

Peter: That shows it is not currency. If it were truly currency, your salary should be fixed directly as "0.1 BTC per month," regardless of Bitcoin's price fluctuations.

CZ: In fact, Binance has quite a few contracts priced directly in Bitcoin. For example, in the early days, when investors or business partners exited, we offered a choice: they could receive dollars or Bitcoin. At that time, we settled at a fixed amount in Bitcoin. The other party later saw the value of their Bitcoin increase significantly due to the price rise.

Peter: That’s an exception because those people wanted Bitcoin; they were Bitcoin investors. They chose Bitcoin voluntarily.

CZ: It is indeed a minority, but it does exist. People do use Bitcoin to price transactions.

Peter: But that is an exception, not the norm. The vast majority of Bitcoin transactions are not for purchasing goods or services; they are just people buying and selling Bitcoin among themselves, with no labor or physical goods exchanged — just pure trading, that’s all.

CZ: That doesn’t necessarily hold; stocks are the same.

Does Bitcoin Have Value? Is It a Ponzi Scheme?

CZ: So we’ve strayed a bit off topic. I’m not arguing whether Bitcoin is currency — because that would lead us into a circular discussion about the "definition of currency." I think a more important question is: does Bitcoin have value? That is the core dispute. Many people here clearly believe that Bitcoin has value. The value of Bitcoin partly comes from speculation, from trading on exchanges like Binance, but a large part comes from its utility. I can carry it with me at any time and move it across countries effortlessly. But if it were this gold bar, I could not easily carry it across borders. Gold is indeed a store of value, but Bitcoin has more reasons to support its value — it can not only store value but has also been increasing in value over the past 15 years.

Peter: But tokenized gold has already solved this problem because you can carry the token without having to carry physical gold.

CZ: However, tokenized gold requires trust in a third party.

Peter: Then find a trustworthy third party.

CZ: That’s possible, but with Bitcoin, I don’t need to trust anyone — that’s its utility.

Peter: But you still need to trust certain things; you need to trust the technology itself, and you need to trust that people will still want to hold Bitcoin in the future. You mentioned that the maximum number of Bitcoins is 21 million —

CZ: Yes, and it’s easy to verify.

Peter: But there are actually 21 trillion satoshis. In terms of that unit, it is not scarce; the supply is vast. Of course, the total amount is indeed limited, but if in the future people no longer want it, those numbers become irrelevant.

CZ: But the fact is, people do want it. If you look at the growth data, especially the user growth on Binance, it has been very stable, nearing 300 million users.

Peter: Yes, there are many more people participating in Bitcoin speculation now than a few years ago. Many were attracted by the hype and the huge returns of early investors, and these early holders are selling Bitcoin to later investors. This has drawn a large number of users into "casino-style" trading.

But if you’re talking about Bitcoin’s functionality — thousands of other tokens can do the same thing. Bitcoin is not the only token that can be carried across borders or transferred.

You say we don’t know how much gold there is on Earth, right? But similarly, we also don’t know how many new cryptocurrencies will emerge in the future. Creating a new token has zero barriers; anyone can generate one out of thin air. These meme coins are examples, with hundreds and thousands of new tokens constantly emerging, flooding the market. They are all competing for the same market as Bitcoin, with no supply limits.

CZ: Issuing a new coin does not create value in itself. A token must be adopted by a large number of users and must have real utility, not just be a feature in a product. Utility must be proven by the size of the community. You say Bitcoin is mainly used for gambling, but just on Binance alone, there are 300 million users who have interacted with some form of Bitcoin.

Peter: Yeah, after all, you run one of the largest "casinos" in the world.

CZ: That’s not a casino.

Peter: Of course it is a casino. The house always wins; your position is very stable.

CZ: The number of people here is greater than the population of many countries. This is not a small-scale operation.

Peter: But even if the scale is large, if its essence is more like a decentralized Ponzi scheme, its nature does not change with scale; it just means more participants, which does not prove it is a legitimate or healthy thing.

CZ: Are you saying that 300 million people are participating in a Ponzi scheme?

Peter: Exactly, it’s just a huge Ponzi scheme, but it cannot expand to the whole world. Look at what has happened in the past few years — today, the price of Bitcoin converted to gold is 40% lower than it was four years ago.

CZ: Really? I’m not sure if that data is accurate.

Peter: Four years ago, when Bitcoin was $69,000, it could be exchanged for 37.2 ounces of gold. Today, it can only be exchanged for 22.15 ounces. That’s a 40% drop.

CZ: So over the past four years, gold has performed better than Bitcoin.

Peter: Much better.

CZ: What about eight years?

Peter: Let me finish my point first. What has happened to Bitcoin in the past four years?

Bitcoin ETFs have been listed, companies have followed MicroStrategy in borrowing money to buy Bitcoin, MicroStrategy itself issued debt to buy $40 billion worth of Bitcoin, and other companies have been buying Bitcoin on a large scale, Super Bowl ads, celebrity endorsements, the NFT craze, El Salvador declaring Bitcoin as legal tender, and the so-called "Bitcoin strategic reserve" narrative.

All this unprecedented promotion, hype, and speculation… but the price has dropped. If Bitcoin cannot rise under such strong momentum and instead loses 40% of its actual value, why would it rise in the future? In my view, this already indicates the end of the matter.

CZ: But the base of Bitcoin four years ago was lower than it is now; you can’t just look at one time frame.

Peter: It’s not a matter of time frame. If Bitcoin claims to be "digital gold," then it should be measured against gold. Priced in gold, it has dropped 40% in the past four years. I picked Bitcoin’s historical high; any investor would look at the high point. And in these four years, everyone has been shouting that Bitcoin will rise. Michael Saylor has been saying everywhere that Bitcoin will rise to $10 million, urging people to mortgage their houses, borrow money, and go bankrupt to buy, claiming Bitcoin is a "sure profit business." If it were truly a sure profit, why isn’t the price at $10 million now? The market would reflect that in advance. You can’t say "it will definitely rise in the future," but the price isn’t rising now.

CZ: It takes time for the price to reach the target. Just like you think gold will be worth more in the future, it doesn’t mean it will immediately rise to that position now.

Peter: That’s because the dollar will continue to depreciate, and the euro and yen will also depreciate; this is due to the inflation of the money supply, which we agree on. But this has nothing to do with Bitcoin. The price of Bitcoin completely depends on the relationship between those who want to buy and those who want to sell. Gold has actual demand; some people must buy gold. If the price of gold drops, demand will increase, creating real value support.

But Bitcoin has no "must-have demand." No one "needs" Bitcoin; people just "want" it — because they believe the price will rise. Once people no longer believe it will rise, there is no reason to continue holding it.

CZ: Let’s talk about the future and the younger generation. Do you think the younger generation will prefer Bitcoin or gold?

Peter: They will prefer gold because their friends will lose a lot of money in Bitcoin.

CZ: What about your son?

Peter: He has already sold his Bitcoin. But it’s actually a good thing for young people to lose money in Bitcoin because when you lose money when you’re young, you still have a lifetime to earn it back and can learn from that experience. But when you get older and have accumulated real wealth, that’s when losses can be truly fatal. So for the future young people who will be "harvested" in Bitcoin, this is actually a valuable experience.

CZ: But Bitcoin has gone from zero value in 2010, to $0.5 when it first bought pizza, to now $100,000 (well, to be precise, currently $90,000). How many people here have made money?

Peter: Among those who raised their hands saying they made money, how many actually sold to realize their gains? Not many.

There’s no denying that early buyers of Bitcoin made a lot of money. I know many people who made hundreds of millions or even billions. Many of them are my neighbors. They can live near me because they sold a lot of Bitcoin and realized those gains. They were all early entrants. Most people who bought in the past few years have not made money. It is these losers who have allowed early entrants to gain wealth. Bitcoin is merely a mechanism for wealth to transfer from buyers to sellers. When Bitcoin is "created" (for example, new coins generated through mining), it does not actually create any real wealth. There are now 20 million Bitcoins in circulation, which did not exist 15 years ago, but that hasn’t made the world any richer. Wealth has simply shifted from some people to others. And those who have lost money may not even realize their losses because their Bitcoin is still marked at a price of $93,000. But if they truly try to sell, they will realize that the value is long gone — because once a large number of holders want to sell at the same time, the Bitcoin market will not be able to absorb it, and it will ultimately collapse.

The Debate on Whether Crypto Payment Cards Truly Enable Cryptocurrency Payments

CZ: Let me share a story I mentioned earlier today. When I encountered some trouble in the U.S., I received a letter of support from an African user. He told me that before cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin emerged, he spent three days every month paying bills: walking from his village to the payment point and back — a full three days.

But after getting involved with cryptocurrencies and using Binance, he can complete payments in just three minutes. As a result, he gradually accumulated $50, $100, $300, and even $1,000. In some impoverished countries in Africa, $1,000 is an astronomical figure that can change a person's life. This has genuinely improved his fate.

Peter: Yes, that is indeed valuable. But this can be achieved without Bitcoin; you can use stablecoins, tokenized gold, or rely on blockchain to accomplish it.

CZ: Of course, stablecoins can be used, but stablecoins still rely on blockchain technology. And currently, the strongest application of blockchain is still Bitcoin. It is the largest token by market capitalization. When we talk about the promotion of blockchain technology, it is primarily driven by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. You mentioned earlier that "anyone can issue a token," which is true, but that does not mean all these tokens have value.

What makes Bitcoin different is that it already has a large user community. Some other mainstream cryptocurrencies (including those on Binance) are gradually approaching this level. In simple terms: value is not created just by issuing tokens; it is the actual use by people that gives it value. And Bitcoin is indeed being used by this African user and many others today, with its use cases continuing to grow, rather than being stagnant technology.

Peter: But I don’t see it that way. I remember when Bitcoin first rose to $1,000 — that was around 2013 — I opposed it at that time. Of course, I admit that I thought the price might continue to rise because clearly, people were buying, and its bubble might continue to expand. But fundamentally, the foundation of Bitcoin has not changed at all.

Back then, many merchants began announcing, "We accept Bitcoin payments," simply because a sudden influx of people had become wealthy due to the Bitcoin surge, so merchants wanted to attract that spending power. That situation has decreased now.

Today, the enthusiasm for using Bitcoin for payments is even lower than it was back then. Moreover, many people have acknowledged that Bitcoin is not suitable for use as a currency, which is why they have changed the narrative and repositioned it as "digital gold." But it is not like digital gold either. You cannot draw a picture of a hamburger and say you have "digital food"; if you rely on digital food to stave off hunger, you will starve.

CZ: Let me ask the audience, how many of you have a Binance card? That is our VISA card. Thank you, you see, here it is.

Peter: So, what you mean is that with this card, I can spend the tokens in my wallet, right? But essentially, it involves selling Bitcoin, and the merchant receives dollars.

CZ: Yes, it works very well.

Peter: This is exactly the same as what I plan to do with gold.

CZ: But you still need to rely on blockchain as tokenized gold.

Peter: No, it doesn’t even require blockchain. If I pay with a debit card, I am essentially selling an asset to pay in cash. When you use this card to pay, you are also selling Bitcoin and then completing the transaction with fiat currency, just like a debit card issued for a securities account. You are not paying with Bitcoin; you are selling Bitcoin and then using fiat currency to buy things.

What I want to do is to allow gold to be transferred directly between buyers and sellers without needing to sell gold for cash. I want the entire transaction process to be priced in gold and settled in gold, without needing to convert it to fiat currency.

But your current card sells Bitcoin for fiat currency; the merchant does not receive your Bitcoin, only dollars.

CZ: We can actually look at this in two parts. The biggest problem with Bitcoin or cryptocurrency payments in the past was that merchants were unwilling to accept cryptocurrencies; and even if some merchants were willing to accept them, users might not be able to pay smoothly.

However, through the card system, we split the process into two: when users swipe their cards, their crypto assets are deducted; as for how the conversion works and what currency the merchant receives — we handle all of that in between. Therefore, users can pay seamlessly, and merchants receive fiat currency or the currency of their choice as usual. We have solved the pain points for both sides.

Peter: I also plan to handle gold payments in the same way. But I believe that in the future, as inflation becomes more severe in developed countries, many merchants will be more willing to accept gold.

CZ: So how many merchants are willing to accept it now?

Peter: Currently, almost none, because they simply do not have that option. But suppose you are a merchant, and inflation is not 2% per year, but 2% per week. After selling your inventory, the cost of restocking may have already increased. But if you receive gold, you can directly restock with gold, and the "price" of gold will not depreciate like fiat currency.

CZ: But gold has also dropped in price over the past few weeks. It reached a high point before and has now fallen.

Peter: There will indeed be short-term fluctuations, but the overall volatility is much lower than that of Bitcoin.

CZ: Some merchants have profit margins of only 10%, and a 10% fluctuation in gold prices can have a huge impact.

Peter: But Bitcoin can drop 10% in a single day; you know that.

CZ: But there are now millions of Binance cards in use.

Peter: Maybe I can have you help me issue a gold card.

CZ: Happy to help. I am not against gold; I just believe Bitcoin is a better "version of gold." You say that almost no one uses Bitcoin for payments, but many payments are actually "happening quietly."

Peter: But that is not using Bitcoin for payment.

CZ: From the user's perspective, they are paying with Bitcoin. They do not need to consider selling tokens, exchanging tokens, or the process of receiving funds.

Peter: But I can do the same with gold or a securities account. I can issue debit cards to clients that automatically sell assets and pay in fiat currency every time they swipe.

Your card essentially operates the same way — selling Bitcoin and then paying with fiat currency.

CZ: But the key is that people are already using cryptocurrencies for payments.

Peter: No, they are not "paying with cryptocurrencies." They are merely using cryptocurrencies as collateral, then selling them and spending the fiat currency they receive. This is completely different from using Bitcoin as a payment medium.

CZ: Peter, your current definition includes all the backend steps in the payment process. But from the user's perspective, when they swipe their card and receive the product, they have completed a crypto payment.

Peter: I understand. But the key is that the two are still different.

Is Bitcoin Primarily Driven by "Speculators"?

Peter: If the price of Bitcoin suddenly crashes — for example, if today you can buy many things, but tomorrow you can’t buy much due to a price drop — those who rely on Bitcoin for payments will run into big trouble.

CZ: I believe most people in the audience will not have this problem; they mostly hold enough crypto assets.

Peter: But what if Bitcoin drops to $9,000? The price can certainly drop significantly; no one knows what the future holds.

CZ: All prices will fluctuate. Even the exchange rates between fiat currencies fluctuate.

Peter: That is relative fluctuation between currencies, not a decline in purchasing power.

CZ: Purchasing power also fluctuates. The so-called "stablecoin" is actually a false concept; there is nothing truly stable in the world.

Peter: But a dollar stablecoin is at least stable relative to the dollar, even though the dollar itself is not stable. So, my question is: since I can do what you can do with Bitcoin, I can also do it with gold, so why not choose a token that is truly backed by assets? Since I can have a token backed by gold, why choose a "crypto fiat" that has nothing behind it?

CZ: But essentially, whether you can do something with gold or fiat currency, Bitcoin can do it too.

Peter: No, you cannot — because Bitcoin cannot store value.

CZ: Bitcoin is an excellent store of value.

Peter: No, it is merely a speculative asset that has risen in price. Bitcoin has increased in price over the past 15 years, but that time frame is too short to prove it can store value long-term.

Bitcoin has a price; I do not deny that. But price and value are completely different. You can store value, but you cannot store price. Bitcoin has a price today, but I do not know what it will be tomorrow. It has no value today, nor will it have value tomorrow. Yet people are still buying because they believe they will get rich. They treat Bitcoin as a lottery ticket.

Once people no longer believe in the fantasy of "Bitcoin going to the moon," demand will disappear.

CZ: You are viewing it entirely from a speculative perspective.

Peter: Because most people buying Bitcoin are indeed speculators. There may be many die-hard Bitcoin believers in the audience, but they are just a small minority. Who do you think the vast majority of Bitcoin buyers are?

CZ: How many people here are developing projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem? Developers, engineers, project teams? While not everyone, there are indeed quite a few. So not everyone is a speculator.

Peter: But compared to those who truly drive the price, these are just a few. Look at the recent Bitcoin ETF buyers, those corporate finance teams that are stuffing Bitcoin into their financial reports; they are not "believers." They are simply seeing Bitcoin rise, looking at the hype, reading the news, being recommended to buy, treating Bitcoin as part of their stock portfolio. They do not care about the "technical features" you mentioned; they do not even self-custody. They just see Bitcoin as a stock ticker and buy it because it is rising. And when it stops rising and starts to fall, they will sell and move their funds elsewhere.

CZ: Peter, the phenomena you describe also exist in the stock market and traditional financial markets. Every market has speculators and builders who are genuinely creating value and building ecosystems. The voices of speculators are always the loudest — that is also why NASDAQ exists. Those buying Bitcoin ETFs are already buying stocks, ETFs, and money market funds. These people have existed in traditional markets for a long time. So the existence of speculators does not mean Bitcoin has no value.

Peter: True, but the presence of speculators in the stock market does not prove that Bitcoin is reasonable. The existence of speculators does not legitimize an asset. When I speculate on stocks — at least theoretically — I am making judgments based on the future value of a company. I am betting that this company will be more profitable in the future, with higher revenue, higher profits, and higher dividends. I am betting on the development of a real business.

CZ: Like a company like Binance?

Peter: Binance is a good company because you are a "casino," and the house always wins.

CZ: We are not a casino. We are now a licensed institution with regulatory licenses in over 30 countries.

Peter: Okay, let’s not digress. I am referring to those who are just trading Bitcoin on your platform.

Let me return to my earlier point: when I buy stocks, I am buying a company that can generate cash flow, dividends, and profits; stocks and even real estate are not purely speculative. You typically buy things that can generate returns.

But when I buy Bitcoin, it does not generate income now, nor will it in the future. Bitcoin does not create cash flow or produce anything. When I buy Bitcoin, the only bet I am making is that someone in the future will be willing to pay a higher price for it. I am not betting on any actual growth; I am betting on the idea that "a higher bidder will appear in the future."

For this reason, Bitcoin is a purely speculative asset: I buy it because I believe someone will pay a higher price in the future; and that person buys it because they believe the next person will pay an even higher price. It is a layer of price expectations with no underlying value to support it.

Since its inception, Bitcoin's essence has never changed — it still completely relies on "more demand" to maintain its price.

CZ: But we just discussed that speculators are only a small part of the crypto ecosystem. Although they are the loudest and trade the most frequently, they do not represent the entire Bitcoin ecosystem, right?

Peter: But it was precisely them who drove Bitcoin to $90,000.

CZ: You are now taking this small group of speculators as the entirety of the industry. That is not accurate. If there were only speculators, Bitcoin's price would not be at this level. There must be fundamental holders supporting the price.

Peter: But Bitcoin reaching $90,000 was indeed driven by speculative funds, right? Without the funds from ETFs, without various "Bitcoin treasury" companies continuously buying, without these speculative funds pouring in, where would Bitcoin's price be today?

CZ: I feel we may not be able to convince each other on this issue. But you are generalizing the behavior of a portion of people to the entire industry.

If there were only speculators, Bitcoin's price would not be where it is today. There must be fundamental demand and long-term holders supporting it.

Peter: But in the past four years — the same four years during which Bitcoin has fallen 40% relative to gold — I believe at least half of Bitcoin holders bought in during these four years.

CZ: I am not sure. I do not quite agree with your inference.

Peter: Moreover, in terms of market capitalization, the funds that have been bought in the past four years may account for more than half.

CZ: In every cycle, the later you buy in, the larger the amount tends to be; this is normal.

Peter: That means there are many people in the market now who bought at high prices.

CZ: But this cycle has also seen a large influx of ETF funds.

Peter: Yes, but behind these ETFs are a lot of ordinary investors. They are not early buyers and do not have huge gains. Most of them were "pushed to buy" in recent years. They do not have the significant profit buffer that early holders have.

CZ: No asset can guarantee huge returns. You cannot expect any asset to keep skyrocketing forever.

Peter: But that is how they have been guided. Look at all the price predictions over the past year: not a single prediction said Bitcoin would fall; everyone said it would rise to $200,000, $250,000, and Saylor and other big names were all promoting "it will rise, it will rise, it will rise."

But the reality now is: Bitcoin's price is lower than it was on January 1. Most people who bought this year are losing money. They did not buy to "use" it but to "get rich."

CZ: But from November last year to now, it has been higher.

Peter: That is because there was a significant drop before last November. But the key point is — all the predictions this year have been wrong, and everyone was encouraged to buy Bitcoin, convinced it would skyrocket, but they ended up losing money. They were not prepared to lose money, but they are indeed losing now. This is the reason Bitcoin is struggling to rise.

CZ: There will always be people making price predictions in the market, but I usually do not predict prices. Prices will fluctuate up and down, and investment must bear risks; this is something everyone must understand.

Peter: But I think many people actually do not understand this.

CZ: Stocks and gold are the same; risk is everywhere.

Peter: But gold has not attracted a large number of retail investors rushing in. I have been in the gold industry for a long time, operating Schiff Gold for many years…

CZ: So why can cryptocurrencies attract a large number of retail investors while gold cannot?

Peter: Because gold does not have a "sexy get-rich-quick story." Most people buy Bitcoin because it is packaged as an opportunity to get rich overnight.

CZ: But you just said gold has risen faster?

Peter: It has indeed done so over the past four years; gold has outperformed Bitcoin. But most people are still buying Bitcoin, not gold. Central banks buy gold; they know what they are doing — central banks do not buy Bitcoin. However, I believe that in the future, private investors will turn more towards gold, especially after the crypto bubble deflates.

In fact, one reason Bitcoin has performed so strongly in recent years is that gold has been stagnant since 2011, not rising during 2012 and 2013. Bitcoin started from zero and capitalized on the "stagnation of gold performance," being hyped as "digital gold" or "gold 2.0."

When gold does not rise, Bitcoin can siphon off attention and funds from the gold market.

CZ: That coincides with the rise of Bitcoin.

Peter: Right. But the situation is different now — gold has doubled in two years, and silver has also reached a historical high, breaking the $50 double top. We are entering a new bull market for precious metals, and gold and silver are expected to rise for several consecutive years.

In such an environment, Bitcoin will find it difficult to compete: those holding gold have no reason to sell their gold to buy Bitcoin, and those who sold gold to buy Bitcoin in the past will regret it and want to sell Bitcoin to return to gold.

But the problem is: when so many people want to sell Bitcoin to return to gold, there simply will not be enough buyers to absorb it, which will lead to a collapse in Bitcoin's price.

CZ: Well, it seems we can only agree to disagree on this point. I sincerely hope gold performs well, and I also hope your digital gold project succeeds.

Peter: Perhaps we can still collaborate. I hope to get my token listed on Binance.

CZ: Absolutely welcome. We welcome you to join the blockchain world. Of course, my view differs from yours — I believe gold will perform well, but Bitcoin will perform even better.

Peter: I believe Bitcoin cannot compete with gold, especially in the current trend.

CZ: We will see next year. In any case, thank you for being here, and I wish you all the best with your gold digitization project.

Peter: It was an honor to participate in this debate; thank you.

CZ: Thank you very much, everyone. See you next time.

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。