对话“黄金教父”Peter Schiff：BTC终将归零，“代币化黄金”才是货币的数字化回归

Disclaimer: Content does not constitute investment advice. Trading involves risks—please invest with caution!

The economist Peter Schiff, known as the “Golden Godfather,” said in an interview that Bitcoin will eventually collapse. What truly represents the future of currency is “tokenized gold” – a digital asset that converts physical gold into a form suitable for circulation and settlement. Schiff believes that with central banks continuously increasing their gold holdings and the dollar’s credibility being questioned, digitizing gold is the only way to restore currency to its true value. These remarks were made when Bitcoin exceeded $110,000, and institutional funds poured into the market. This undoubtedly fueled further speculation: Is the crypto revolution led by BTC more promising, or is “on-chain gold” the ultimate destination of currency?

The original text is as follows:

● Host: I’ve watched many of your interviews. For example, in 2007, you warned of a crisis, but everyone laughed at you. Also, when the gold price was at $1200, you insisted on predicting it would reach $5000 and engaged in intense debates with the host. All these predictions turned out to be correct. Let me ask this question: What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding among those in the crypto community regarding gold?

Peter Schiff: Many people misunderstand gold because they try to defend Bitcoin. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value at all. It isn’t a raw material that can be used to create anything, nor is it an object that can be consumed. It’s just a digital symbol that you can give away to others, who can do nothing with it except pass it on to someone else.

于是他们想当然地把黄金也归为这一类，认为黄金不过是一块“无用的石头”，有价值只是因为人们“相信它有价值”。他们据此得出结论：既然黄金能“凭信念”定价，那比特币也可以。

但他们忽略了最关键的一点：黄金确实有内在价值，而且价值极高。这正是它能成为货币的根本原因——它是一种稀缺而珍贵的实物商品。黄金之所以优于其他商品，能长期作为货币使用，是因为它拥有一系列独特属性：可分割、可替代、耐久、易携带。比特币确实在这些属性上模仿了黄金，但缺失了最核心的一点——实际价值。

没有这一点，其他一切都成了空谈。你可以把“虚无”切分成无数小块，但它仍然是“虚无”。黄金之所以可以被分割，是因为它本身就是有价值的物质。

从元素学角度看，黄金是地球上最有用的金属之一。它之所以不被更广泛地用于工业，是因为太贵、太稀缺——而这恰恰构成了它的价值。黄金被用于许多领域：最直观的是首饰，虽然你也能用其他金属做饰品，但人们更偏爱黄金。除此之外，它还应用于电子设备、航天、医疗、牙科等多个行业。

Another important use of gold is as a medium of exchange. Gold can serve as a store of value because it does not decay or wear out over time. If you bury a gold coin for five hundred years, when you retrieve it, it will still be as shiny as new, with no loss in value. This means that gold can preserve wealth across time and can still be used in the future.

Bitcoin, however, is different. No one “needs” Bitcoin today, and no one will need it in the future either. Bitcoin cannot preserve value because it doesn’t have any value to be stored. It does have some technological innovations, but those are merely technical features. There are already thousands of cryptocurrencies, each claiming to be “unique,” but none of them have any real use or intrinsic value. Moreover, new coins can continue to be created, so even the so-called “scarcity” of Bitcoin no longer exists.

The entire cryptocurrency market is essentially a huge bubble. Those who entered early made money—they held onto coins during the early stages of the bubble and sold them at high prices when the bubble expanded. All that profit came from the losses of those who arrived later. That’s how it works: those who entered early make money, while those who arrived later take their place.

● Host: It seems like you understand the concept behind Bitcoin quite well. But on the other hand, do you think that predicting its “zeroing” in 2017 was a mistake?

Peter Schiff: I still believe that Bitcoin will eventually reach zero, so I don’t think I was wrong. But I admit that I underestimated the gullibility of the public, as well as the marketing skills of those who promoted Bitcoin.

比特币的早期参与者在市场推广上极其成功——他们构建了一个引人入胜的“叙事”，让人们心甘情愿地去购买他们想卖出的东西。可以说，这是一场庞大的“拉盘出货”游戏。那些最早期的持有者——所谓的“OG”或“鲸鱼”——手握大量比特币，他们从无到有地创造了一个市场，让大众相信这东西有价值，从而推高价格，好让自己能在高位套现离场。

在我看来，过去几年的行情走势，实际上就是这场出货过程的延续。尤其是在比特币现货 ETF 上市之后、以及特朗普赢得大选之后，我认为加密行业在那段时间甚至主动参与推动了特朗普的胜选，其背后的目的之一，就是为了继续“拉盘”，为早期资金制造更大的退出空间。

的确，许多人在那一波中赚到了钱。但这也正是为什么如今比特币的价格停滞不前。它在冲上十万美元以上之后，便长期横盘，再无新的高点。

如果以黄金计价，比特币其实已经下跌了约 30%——比特币与黄金的比值从 1:26 下降到了 1:8。从黄金的角度看，它早已进入了熊市。

● Host: I notice that you have always used the concept of “gold price” to measure the market dynamics. This consistency is indeed commendable. Let’s change direction a bit. Today, we won’t talk much about Bitcoin. Instead, I would like to ask you to explain to young listeners why gold has performed extremely well this year, the best since 1979. What exactly is happening?

Peter Schiff: If your audience mostly comes from the crypto community, then my advice is simple: buy some gold and silver.

I own a company called Schiff Gold. We even support Bitcoin payments, but we convert Bitcoin into US dollars through BitPay, which we then use to purchase gold or silver. As for why gold has been so strong this year, I believe we are living through a situation similar to the 1970s—not just stagflation, but a global monetary system overhaul.

In the early 1970s, before Nixon announced that the US dollar was no longer pegged to gold, the dollar was essentially a representative of gold—it wasn’t only “supported by gold,” but it could also be “directly exchanged for gold.” At that time, the dollars held by central banks were essentially orders to purchase gold. But in 1971, the United States unilaterally “defaulted,” telling other countries, “You can no longer exchange your dollars for gold.” This meant that the dollar was no longer tied to gold; it became just a piece of paper. As a result, the value of the dollar compared to other major currencies plummeted—by about two-thirds. The decline in the value of gold was even more dramatic: the price of gold soared from $35 to $850 in 1980.

同样的现象也出现在石油上。油价从每桶 3 美元涨到 40 美元。其实并不是石油涨价了，而是美元贬值了。当时美国还指责 OPEC 国家“哄抬油价”，但真正的原因是：我们用的是“纸”，而不是“金”。既然拿纸来付钱，人家当然会要更多的“纸”。

我认为，现在的局面就像那场变革的“第二阶段”。这一次，世界不是脱离黄金，而是脱离美元。几十年来，全球经济仍然依赖美元体系运转。但如今，各国央行正悄悄去美元化，用黄金取代美元作为储备资产。这意味着世界正在重新回到一个以黄金为核心的储备体系。虽然不一定是严格意义上的“金本位”，但各国会持有更多黄金，而减少对美元、欧元或英镑的依赖。

对美国而言，这将是一个历史性的转折。这意味着美国不能再像过去那样“超支”——不能再靠印钞购买自己没有生产的东西，也不能再通过举债维持消费。接下来，美国人的生活成本会显著上升，借贷成本也会飙升。资产价格——尤其是股票和房地产——以黄金计价的实际价值将持续下滑。事实上，自 1999 年以来，道琼斯指数以美元计价看似上涨了四倍，但若以黄金计价，它其实下跌了超过 70%。这才是衡量真实购买力的方式。

我认为，这个趋势不会停止，反而会持续并加速。世界正在从“美元标准”，正式回归到“黄金标准”。

● 主持人：你最核心的预测是，即将到来的危机会“让 2008 年相形见绌”，甚至像“主日学校的野餐”。抛开比喻，在现实层面这具体意味着什么?它会如何展开、呈现为何种景象?我们最该关注哪些先兆?

Peter Schiff：2008 年的危机，本质上是一场“债务危机”——从次级按揭市场爆发，随后蔓延到持有或承保这些按揭债务的机构。当时，美国政府通过救助与刺激措施，暂时压制住了冲击。那确实让危机没有立刻演变成系统性崩溃。严格来说，从更长远的视角看，如果当年不干预，让市场承受一次更彻底的清洗，今天美国的经济体质或许反而更健康。但他们选择了另一条路——把罐子再踢远一点。

而这一次不同——这是一次政府无法再出手相救的危机。

I’m not predicting a collapse of the mortgage or credit markets. Instead, I’m warning of a crisis at the level of U.S. government bonds—a real sovereign debt crisis. This isn’t just about whether markets doubt whether homeowners with high leverage can repay their loans with variable interest rates. It’s about the global community starting to question whether the U.S. government can even continue to pay its debts. What I’m worried about isn’t just “nominal default” (although that scenario is not impossible either; in some ways, outright default might even be better than what I anticipate). The real risk lies in this: when the debts come due, how much value will the dollars actually have left? If the only way to pay off these debts is by printing more money—and that’s indeed the case right now—then creditors will become panicked. Look at what Trump is saying: advocating for lower interest rates during periods of high inflation. What does that mean? It means that we will create even more inflation. When interest rates remain below inflation for a long time, lenders won’t get any compensation, leading to a systematic sell-off of U.S. government bonds. Once global investors no longer want to buy U.S. government bonds or hold onto dollars, it becomes not just a sovereign debt crisis, but a currency crisis—a crisis at a higher level within the financial system.

因为这一次，爆炸的将是所谓“无风险资产”本身。它的崩塌会引发信用市场的全面震荡。到那时，美国政府将无力救助任何人;美联储也无法像 2008 年那样，用美元或美债去“替换”私人部门的坏账。TARP(不良资产救助计划)的逻辑是：用美国政府的债务去顶私人部门的债——前提是市场仍然相信美国国债。而现在，这份信心正在消失。

在一个美元暴跌、通胀飙升的场景中，政府还能做什么?他们不能再印钱“大撒特撒”，那只会火上浇油，让美元跌得更快、长期利率更高。过去那些药方，如今都彻底失效了。我们正被困在一个进退维谷的局面中。唯一的出路，是政府几十年来始终拒绝的那条路——因为那条路太痛。但也正因为拖得太久，如今再要面对，疼痛会更加剧烈。

● 主持人：如果危机无法被救助，请具体描述：假设一年后的今天(2025 年 10 月 22 日)，这场危机会如何爆发?第一个爆点会是什么?

Peter Schiff：Let’s start with gold prices. Last week, the price of gold reached almost $4,400, but it quickly dropped back to around $4,000. Nevertheless, $4,000 is still twice what it was two years ago. Looking back at history, in 1980, when the world was abandoning the dollar and losing confidence in the United States, how did Paul Volcker help restore confidence? He raised short-term interest rates to 20%. In other words, he offered those who held dollars a 20% return on their investments. At that time, inflation was only around 10%-12%, so a 20% return was enough to attract capital back into the market.

At the same time, Reagan took office and implemented market-oriented reforms along with tax cuts, completely reversing the policy trends of Nixon, Ford, Johnson, and Kennedy, who favored a “big government, inefficient policies, and excessive intervention.” This helped restore confidence in the dollar. But today, all these tools are no longer effective. First of all, Trump isn’t like Reagan; and the current Federal Reserve chairman, Powell, isn’t like Volcker either. Even if Volcker were still alive, he wouldn’t be able to do anything similar. After all, the scale of debt today makes it impossible for the United States to sustain such high interest rates.

In 1980, the total amount of government debt in the United States was less than one trillion dollars, and most of this debt was characterized by long-term fixed-interest rates. Even if short-term interest rates rose to 20%, the impact on the budget would have been limited. But today, the situation is completely different: about one-third of the government debt is due within a year, with the total debt exceeding 38 trillion dollars. The average maturity of all debts is only around four to five years (I can’t remember the exact number, but it’s quite short). If interest rates rise to 10%, the annual interest payments will quickly reach 4 trillion dollars, which is simply impossible to afford. Right now, we collect only 5 trillion dollars in taxes per year. And if short-term interest rates really reach 10%, the economy will plunge into a deep recession, businesses will go bankrupt on a large scale, unemployment will soar, deficits will become extremely high, and tax revenues will plummet.

The conclusion is clear: we can no longer use interest rate hikes to combat inflation, because such measures would essentially kill the economy outright. Since raising interest rates won’t “cure” the problem, we’ll be left to suffer from inflation, leading to the risk of severe inflation/money crises.

Is there any way to avoid the worst-case scenario? That would be defaulting on debts or restructuring them. The U.S. government could say, “We’ve borrowed 40 trillion dollars, and we can’t pay it back all at once. Maybe we can pay you 25 cents for each dollar we owe.”

At the same time, we need higher interest rates. This is why it’s necessary to restructure the debt: low interest rates have been the root cause of the problems over the past few decades. Now, both the Federal Reserve and Trump want to lower interest rates again, but what we actually need are higher interest rates.

Trump has been complaining about the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry and the huge trade deficits. To address these issues, we need higher interest rates—so that consumption decreases and savings increase, allowing us to invest in building factories. Without savings, we cannot build factories; without factories, we will still have to import goods produced by others. In the past, this was possible because others were willing to accept our dollars as a reserve currency. But once the dollar loses this status, the world will no longer use our “paper” to exchange for their goods. We will have to produce everything ourselves, but now we no longer have the capacity, infrastructure, supply chains, or skilled workers that America had decades ago. This is what reality looks like. So, this is exactly what’s happening now. The problem is that most people failed to exit the market at the right time. Some people bought Bitcoin at $5,000, and their investments increased by twenty times over time. They thought they had made the right decision. But when the price dropped back to $1,000, and their profits were reduced by 80%, who was right or wrong? If those profits never materialized at all, then they essentially didn’t exist at all. In this sense, I still believe my judgment about Bitcoin’s nature—that it ultimately fails to fulfill its promises—is correct.

Of course, I also admit that I “erred” in not taking advantage of this frenzy to make money. I could have bought at an early and low price, and then sold at multiple points to make huge profits. Over the past three to four years, even this year, my returns from other investments weren’t bad at all. But if I had bought Bitcoin instead, my returns might have been even more impressive. I just didn’t do that.

From a retrospective perspective, I “should” have done so. But even so, I still believe that there will be far more people who lose money on Bitcoin than those who make money. Especially those who entered the market only recently—they are likely to suffer significant losses.

● Host: Even if I make a “mistake” once, as long as it can lead to thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits, I’m willing to take the risk. But you really said that prices will be difficult to rise further after this. Okay, let’s shift our focus back on the topic at hand—today, we’re mainly discussing gold. Is this considered a “victory tour” in your career? (Peter Schiff: It’s not yet a tour. I believe gold prices will continue to rise. Right now, it’s only $4,000. The journey isn’t over yet. The dollar crisis, the collapse of U.S. debt, the significant depreciation of the dollar… none of these things have happened yet. Before that happens, I won’t say ‘I told you so.’) But you obviously believe that all these things will happen, including the collapse of Bitcoin. (Peter Schiff: Yes, I think they will all happen. Bitcoin could even collapse before the dollar or U.S. debt does—it could collapse at any time. Right now, the only thing that supports it is Trump’s policy environment. Other than that, there’s no real support for it.) Let’s wrap up our discussion on “doomsday/malignant inflation”. Suppose everything goes as you predicted—gold prices rise to $10,000, $15,000, or even $20,000—what will happen then? How should ordinary people respond? Should they invest all their money in gold, or spread their investments across different assets? If they can’t hold dollars, what should they invest in?

Peter Schiff: For people my age who have significant assets, I recommend holding a portion of their wealth in gold—for example, up to 5%, 10%, or 20% of their portfolio. In addition, I prefer stocks that generate dividends. I own several gold-related stocks, as well as many non-gold overseas stocks. I believe these stocks can provide real returns after inflation, helping American investors maintain their standard of living during the impending depreciation of the dollar.

For young people who don’t yet have much savings but want to take some precautions, I suggest keeping some physical gold and silver. Silver is a better choice because it’s easier to trade and has a lower unit value. For example, spending $5,000 to $10,000 on silver coins allows you to store value and use them in extreme situations.

Also, don’t only stock up on items that are absolutely necessary for that week. If you have space in your home, store more non-perishable essentials—things you will definitely need in six months, a year, or two years. Buying now means that prices will be higher in the future. In other words, you’re locking in prices and protecting yourself from inflation. For example, if a tube of toothpaste costs $5 right now, but will cost $10 in a year, buying more now means that you’ll earn a 100% return after one year, since you will eventually need it anyway. Instead of putting money in the bank and buying more expensive toothpaste later, it’s better to buy now.

Another potential problem is price control. When the US dollar starts to decline significantly, and prices start to rise sharply, governments may resort to price controls, just as they did during Nixon’s era, in an attempt to “keep prices down”. However, this often leads to shortages, because when legal prices are kept below costs, businesses simply refuse to sell anything at all. In such cases, if you go to supermarkets or pharmacies, you might not even find toothpaste on the shelves. Then, the black market will emerge, with even higher prices, and users will have to risk going to jail. Moreover, the black market doesn’t accept credit cards; people prefer to pay in cash. Therefore, stocking up on goods in advance can help you avoid the black market and minimize the impact of price fluctuations. Do you remember how difficult it was to get toilet paper during the COVID-19 pandemic? If price control is added to this situation, things will get worse. Even without price control, the depreciation of the US dollar will cause prices to rise. But if we use silver as a unit of measurement, many things will become “cheaper”. You can get more of the items you want with less silver. Many people think that Bitcoin can serve this purpose as well, but I believe the opposite will happen: Bitcoin will also depreciate relative to the US dollar. By then, if you want to buy things with Bitcoin, you’ll find that you need to spend more Bitcoin, because the prices of Bitcoin-based items will rise faster than those priced in US dollars.

Even without price control, the depreciation of the US dollar will still lead to rising prices. But if we use silver as a unit of measurement, many things will become cheaper. You can get more of the items you want with less silver. Many people think that Bitcoin can serve this purpose as well, but I believe the opposite will happen: Bitcoin will also depreciate relative to the US dollar. By then, if you want to buy things with Bitcoin, you’ll find that you need to spend more Bitcoin, because the prices of Bitcoin-based items will rise faster than those priced in US dollars.

● 主持人：你刚才那段“牙膏投资学”，在加密世界听上去简直像一堂“神级带货课”。说真的，过去两天我看了你不少早年的访谈，对你多了几分敬意。不过在加密圈里，你常被描绘成那个“爱骂天的愤怒老爸”。我自己不算“比特币至上者”，但确实是个“加密爱好者”。有个画面我一直记得：大概 2006 年，你在福克斯电视台上预言金融危机，那时现场所有人都在笑——主持人、嘉宾、观众，全场哄堂。我想问的是：2008 年之前，那些聪明人怎么会集体看不见危机?那么多机构、那么多专家，为什么几乎没人意识到它要发生?

Peter Schiff：那是典型的群体思维。当所有人都以同一种方式思考，就会对任何挑战他们信念的声音本能地排斥。我常说是“认知失调”：他们会在脑子里筑起一道墙，我说什么都穿不过去，因为一旦接受，就会颠覆他们的世界观、职业路径和利益格局。没有人愿意承认我说的是对的。

而且既然别人都不说、只有我在说，他们就更容易下结论：怎么可能这个来自一家小公司的家伙是对的，而哈佛的经济学家、美联储、华尔街大行、总统经济顾问委员会全是错的?所以他们宁愿相信我是错的。

But now, in the Bitcoin community, I see the same psychological pattern: the belief in Bitcoin has become an integral part of one’s identity. People bet all their money on it, refusing to listen to any criticism. Any opposing opinions are simply dismissed as nonsense. So when I say “Bitcoin will collapse,” they laugh at me just like those people did when I said “Banks will fail, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will go bankrupt.” “That’s impossible.” But I can only say: That’s exactly what will happen.

● Host: To be fair, you started warning about the crisis in 2006, and two years later it actually happened. But you’ve been talking about Bitcoin for over a decade now.

Peter Schiff: In fact, I started warning about the risks to the financial system back in 2002 or 2003. By then, I already saw that the Federal Reserve was keeping interest rates too low, and I also noticed the problems lurking in the real estate and mortgage markets. By 2006, I became more frequent and aggressive in my warnings, and I appeared on more media outlets. So everyone remembers these events as happening in 2006 or 2007. But yes, the bubble around Bitcoin lasted longer than the real estate bubble. I’ve been criticizing Bitcoin for a much longer period of time compared to when I was criticizing the subprime mortgage crisis and the housing market. Because its lifespan was artificially extended, many people think, “You must be wrong this time, right? It should have broken down by now.”

I believe that there were several moments when the “distance between different groups” became very close. One of the successes of the crypto industry is that it has managed to bring Wall Street into the picture—through spot trading/ETFs, MicroStrategy’s use of financial leverage and financing mechanisms, and various other structural leverage techniques, they have been able to extend the market trends. Additionally, they have actively tried to recruit Trump and his family into their interests, thereby leveraging the influence of the “Crypto Tsar” and the White House to fuel this “pyramid scheme” of selling more tokens at higher prices.

But this cannot continue indefinitely; eventually, it will reach its peak and collapse on its own. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value; its entire value comes from speculation. Therefore, there must always be new buyers willing to take over at higher prices. Once the supply of new buyers runs out, the system will collapse. So they came up with the idea of “buying and not selling”. This tactic was actually created by those who held large amounts of Bitcoin in the early days—they wanted to sell, but at the same time, they needed others not to sell, and they had to keep attracting new people to participate. In the end, the structure will collapse. In fact, it might already be happening.

Just look at some crypto-related stocks: I mentioned earlier that Winklevoss Brothers’ exchange, Gemini, went public last month, and now it has fallen by about 60% from its initial high. Trump’s media company, DJT, has also lost 70% since October. There was also that Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas, where they introduced a so-called “Nakamoto” project. I said at the time that it was just another pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme. When it first went public, it was worth $30, but now it’s only worth $0.7.

This is the true nature of bubbles: everything seems stable, but in reality, the collapse has already begun.

● 主持人：你有没有想过，这十年来你在节目和社交媒体上提“比特币”的次数可能比任何人都多?某种程度上，你也在“给它带货”吧?

Peter Schiff：它现在还活着，而且号称有“数万亿美元”的市值。再看看金融媒体被渗透的程度——你打开 CNBC，几乎满屏都是加密内容。我都建议他们改名叫 “Crypto News” 或 “Bitcoin Channel” 得了。

● 主持人：公允地讲，它是过去十年里表现最好的资产之一，媒体也有“告知受众”的义务吧。

Peter Schiff：等他们亏光了钱，观众可能会反过来起诉媒体。看看谁在买广告，谁在赞助——加密项目买了大量的商业时段。平台几乎不让人说比特币的坏话。

● 主持人：可你几乎天天都在发声啊，你还常常上 CNBC。

Peter Schiff：我现在几乎上不了。他们停止邀请我，很大程度就是因为我对比特币持否定态度。赞助商会说：我们花钱投广告，但别让 Peter Schiff 上去拆台。

● 主持人：比特币圈的人其实“欢迎”你上节目——他们需要一个反派来坚定自己的立场。好吧，最后一个大问题：你预测了 2008 年的危机，那一年你是怎么操作的?当下有没有相似的参考?

Peter Schiff: In 2008, I suffered significant losses. The only thing that turned out to be profitable for me was my position as a “subprime short seller” in 2007. I realized the losses from that trade before the crisis hit. But at that time, I had a large amount of gold stocks and overseas securities in my possession. These assets declined even more sharply in 2008 compared to the overall stock market.

However, in 2009, these assets rebounded significantly, and I managed to make up for most of my losses (excluding the profits from my short-selling strategy). What I did well was to prepare for the dollar crisis that followed the financial crisis. My first book, “Crash Proof,” explains this clearly: when a financial crisis breaks out, mortgage loans and real estate markets collapse, banks fail, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suffer problems. In response, governments start to print money excessively (what we now call quantitative easing). I predicted that this would lead to a crisis in the dollar and the bond market, and that gold prices would rise sharply. It turns out that I was right about the timing, but not about the direction. Gold prices did reach $1900, but then they dropped back down. The dollar, on the other hand, fell first and then rose. The Federal Reserve succeeded in creating even more bubbles—bubbles in stocks, real estate, bonds, and even cryptocurrency. I call this “the bubble of everything”.

后来我写了《The Real Crash》(真正的崩盘：如何从美国即将到来的“破产”中获利)里，我强调：2008 并不是“我真正担心的那场崩盘”，真正的崩盘在美元与债券。它一直没来，但我认为现在很近了。黄金的再度强势上行，就是警报。这就像 2007 年次贷爆雷时的信号——当时大家都说“可控”，结果全球被卷进去。今天很多人看黄金上涨，只把它当成“题材股”或“动能股”，却不理解背后的含义。

在我看来，这其实是在告诉我们：世界正在失去对美元的信心。那场本该多年前爆发的美元危机，如今正在逼近。

● 主持人：你刚才说“万物泡沫”，那黄金现在是不是也进入泡沫了?

Peter Schiff：不是。最近确实涨得快，从 3500、3600 一路冲到 4400，再迅速回落，单日跌幅超过 6.5%。但这离“泡沫”还差得远。

我拿自家公司 SchiffGold 的业务举个例子：过去两年，我们的销量其实并不高。虽然最近几周好了一些，但从金价 2000 涨到 4000 这段时间，我们并没迎来所谓“抢金潮”。我们最火的一年是 2020 年疫情期间——那时人们恐慌、纷纷买金。而过去两年，大家并不害怕，他们更热衷于买比特币、买科技股。

现在真正的大买家是各国央行。他们不是投机客，不打算高抛低吸，而是把黄金当作长期储备资产，因为他们对美元的信心正在下降。从资产配置的角度看，养老金、捐赠基金、对冲基金这些机构里，投向黄金及相关股票(包括矿业股)的比例大概也就 2% 左右，远低于历史均值。

如果这都算泡沫，那“泡沫”早该满街都是——但现实恰恰相反。你在社交媒体上看到的那些“排队买金”的照片，我怀疑很多其实是排队卖首饰变现。我们这里在金价上涨的过程中，还有不少老客户选择逢高卖出。这更像是一种理性了结，而非全民亢奋。

去年到今年，黄金 ETF、金矿股 ETF 都在持续净流出。在黄金市场里，恐惧多于贪婪;而在比特币市场，我看到的几乎全是贪婪——动辄喊“一定上百万、上千万”，那是典型的“梭哈叙事”：不买就等着当穷人。黄金这边，没有这种集体幻觉。

● 主持人：你觉得区块链行业有没有诞生过什么“正向产物”?你喜欢稳定币吗?喜欢智能合约吗?比如 Polymarket 这种预测市场，你觉得有价值吗?

Peter Schiff：几年前，我和朋友在比特币上做过一个 Ordinals NFT，叫 “Golden Triumph”(金色胜利)——画面是一只手高举金条，有点像是在“对着比特币的脸”开玩笑：最后的胜利属于黄金。这枚 NFT 附带一张签名版真品印刷。原画油画没人买，但印刷版卖光了，后来有人在 Magic Eden 上转手。

总体而言，我对 NFT 热潮并不看好。它的结局也如我预期——短暂爆红，然后迅速熄火。十多年前就有人跟我说“区块链将改变一切”，但直到今天，它对我的生活几乎没有任何实质影响。我没有把车本、房本放在链上，也不靠链上去交易股票。

你提到像 Polymarket 这样的例子，我不觉得一定需要区块链才能实现。互联网刚出来时立刻改变了我的生活——我不用买它的股票，也会用它的产品;而区块链/比特币对我日常的改变几乎为零。

讽刺的是，最适合上链的资产，反而是黄金。很多人反驳黄金时喜欢问：买杯咖啡难道要从金条上刮屑称重?可世界在金本位下过了上千年，没有我们今天的技术也能轻松用金做交易。而今天我们有了区块链，反而更简单了：把金存在托管机构，把所有权代币化，你拿着代表金的代币在钱包里转移所有权，用区块链可以做到即时、透明、低成本、可验证。

再说稳定币。它锚定的是美元，而美元并不稳定——长期贬值;而且稳定币的利息被发行方拿走，代币持有者拿不到。那是最差的“持有美元”的方式：你拿着一种不生息、锚定贬值货币的代币。不如把黄金代币化，锚向黄金的“稳定”。它能做到比特币承诺却做不到的事：交换媒介、记账单位、价值储藏。

我大概率会做自己的黄金代币：我们正在给 SchiffGold 搭平台，用户在手机 App 上买黄金，实物黄金存由我们托管、归用户所有;用户可在 App 内转移黄金的所有权用于支付，也可以赎回实物，未来也可以赎回链上代币。同时我们计划还会配一张借记卡，卡里以金银为底，当你刷 10 美元，系统就卖出等值的黄金来结算。当然，理想情况是对方也愿意收黄金，那就直接用黄金结算。

有人质疑“有对手方风险”。我的看法是：资本主义本来就充满对手方关系——保险、托管都是这样。比如 Brinks 已经干了 160 多年，专门做黄金托管，历史上没丢过一克黄金，这就是品牌与信誉的积累。你不能因为存在对手方，就说“金不行”。

As for whether it can be integrated into the blockchain or not, it’s possible, but not necessarily required. What I’m more concerned about is the value of gold itself; tokens are just a more convenient medium for transporting value. I also hope that this system can be used across multiple chains, with users having to pay gas fees for transactions between different chains. But if it’s just for internal transfers within SchiffGold users, then there’s no need to integrate it into the blockchain at all, and there are no additional costs involved.

There are already similar products on the market, such as Tether’s Tether Gold. By the way, I still have a domain name related to “gold” saved in my portfolio. I thought Tether might buy it, but they didn’t. Now, when you visit that domain name, it will directly redirect you to SchiffGold.

● Host: Do you still own any Bitcoins? Including those left over from the sale of Ordinals NFTs?

Peter Schiff: I haven’t kept any of the Bitcoins I sold from Ordinals. But I do still have some Bitcoins left—about one-third of a Bitcoin, stored in an old wallet. However, I haven’t been able to access it for many years, so I can’t get it anymore. In addition, I created a project called “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve”. It was because Trump announced the establishment of a “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve”, so I decided to follow suit and create something similar.

I made my wallet address public. Initially, I used the Coinbase address. Later, to allow everyone to see the transactions directly, I purchased a cold wallet and transferred some of those “strategic reserves” there. So, technically, I do have a “Bitcoin strategic reserve” and a small amount of other cryptocurrencies in my possession, just like the U.S. government does. But the important point is: I never spent a single cent from my own money. Those coins were all donated by others. I also promised that I would never use them for any purposes. The last time I checked, I had around six or seven thousand dollars in Bitcoin, along with several hundred dollars in other cryptocurrencies, mainly Solana-related ones. That’s all there was.

In short, I never used my own funds to buy even a little bit of Bitcoin. Even those coins that were later “lost” were given to me by others. At first, Anthony Pompliano (@APompliano) offered me 100 dollars in Bitcoin. Since I didn’t have a wallet, he couldn’t transfer the money to me.

Earlier on, after a Bitcoin debate with Erik Voorhees (@ErikVoorhees), we went out to eat together. He and another friend installed a wallet on my phone (it seemed to be an app like Crypto.com). Then, to demonstrate how it worked, they transferred me about 100 dollars in Bitcoin. I immediately transferred back 50 dollars, so when I left the restaurant, I still had 50 dollars in Bitcoin in my wallet.

They gave me a PIN code, but not a mnemonic phrase or password. So, I used that PIN code for many years. Once, at an exhibition, someone bought my book and paid with Bitcoin or Ethereum. Gradually, the amount of coins in my wallet increased to several hundred dollars. Later, I sent that address to Pompliano, asking him to transfer some coins there. He didn’t do so, but other people continued to send me coins. Eventually, I had about one-third of a Bitcoin. At that time, the price of Bitcoin was around $10,000, and it has since risen even more.

One morning, I realized that I couldn’t access my account anymore. I said, “I haven’t forgotten the password. It’s the wallet that has forgotten its password.” Everyone laughed at me. But the truth is—I really didn’t know the password at all. All I had was the PIN code.

I contacted Erik Voorhees and the wallet company, but they couldn’t find any information about my account. I had no mnemonic phrase, no password… nothing at all. Later, the wallet company updated their system, requiring me to re-enter the password. But my PIN code was no longer valid. So, those coins became completely inaccessible.

To make it clear: Those Bitcoins were donated by others. Even the Bitcoins that I now consider to be part of my “strategic reserves” were never funded with my own money. I won’t touch them. I’ll just leave them there, whether their value rises or falls. I’m willing to let them sink along with the ship.