The post Bitcoin vs. Gold: Peter Schiff, CZ Face Off on Store-of-Value Merits in Dubai appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Insights The Bitcoin vs. Gold debate went viral after CZ asked Peter Schiff to authenticate a 999.99-gram gold bar on stage — Schiff couldn’t confirm it, highlighting gold’s trust-based limitations. CZ contrasted gold’s slow, destructive assay process with Bitcoin’s on-chain verification, as BTC rose 1.2% to $92,669 while gold held near $4,187 on Dec. 5. The showdown coincided with deeper institutional shifts: tokenized-gold volume jumped 15%, Bitcoin ETFs now exceed $110B, and central banks continue buying gold while piloting Bitcoin reserves. Bitcoin vs. Gold took center stage recently, when former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) and longtime gold advocate Peter Schiff finally faced off at Binance Blockchain Week. The debate delivered a viral moment that crystallized the core philosophical divide between the two assets in front of thousands of attendees and a global livestream audience. The defining exchange came when CZ produced a 999.99-gram gold bar and asked Schiff to confirm its authenticity on stage. Schiff’s candid reply — “I’m not sure” — drew roars from the crowd and instantly became the most-watched clip of the event, racking up over 500,000 views within hours across Binance Square and X. With Bitcoin trading below $90K, and Gold holding steady near $4,204 per ounce, the debate underscored Bitcoin’s verifiable scarcity against gold’s persistent trust problem. This narrative has resonated strongly in a market still digesting 2025’s institutional adoption wave. The Gold-Bar Moment That Defined Bitcoin vs. Gold The exchange unfolded roughly 15 minutes into the 60-minute session. CZ, holding the bar gifted by Kazakhstan’s central bank, challenged Schiff directly: “Is it real?” After weighing it and examining the markings, Schiff conceded he could not verify purity without laboratory testing. CZ immediately contrasted this with Bitcoin: “You can verify every single satoshi in seconds, anywhere in the world, with zero trust required.”… The post Bitcoin vs. Gold: Peter Schiff, CZ Face Off on Store-of-Value Merits in Dubai appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Insights The Bitcoin vs. Gold debate went viral after CZ asked Peter Schiff to authenticate a 999.99-gram gold bar on stage — Schiff couldn’t confirm it, highlighting gold’s trust-based limitations. CZ contrasted gold’s slow, destructive assay process with Bitcoin’s on-chain verification, as BTC rose 1.2% to $92,669 while gold held near $4,187 on Dec. 5. The showdown coincided with deeper institutional shifts: tokenized-gold volume jumped 15%, Bitcoin ETFs now exceed $110B, and central banks continue buying gold while piloting Bitcoin reserves. Bitcoin vs. Gold took center stage recently, when former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) and longtime gold advocate Peter Schiff finally faced off at Binance Blockchain Week. The debate delivered a viral moment that crystallized the core philosophical divide between the two assets in front of thousands of attendees and a global livestream audience. The defining exchange came when CZ produced a 999.99-gram gold bar and asked Schiff to confirm its authenticity on stage. Schiff’s candid reply — “I’m not sure” — drew roars from the crowd and instantly became the most-watched clip of the event, racking up over 500,000 views within hours across Binance Square and X. With Bitcoin trading below $90K, and Gold holding steady near $4,204 per ounce, the debate underscored Bitcoin’s verifiable scarcity against gold’s persistent trust problem. This narrative has resonated strongly in a market still digesting 2025’s institutional adoption wave. The Gold-Bar Moment That Defined Bitcoin vs. Gold The exchange unfolded roughly 15 minutes into the 60-minute session. CZ, holding the bar gifted by Kazakhstan’s central bank, challenged Schiff directly: “Is it real?” After weighing it and examining the markings, Schiff conceded he could not verify purity without laboratory testing. CZ immediately contrasted this with Bitcoin: “You can verify every single satoshi in seconds, anywhere in the world, with zero trust required.”…

Bitcoin vs. Gold: Peter Schiff, CZ Face Off on Store-of-Value Merits in Dubai

2025/12/06 20:42

Key Insights

  • The Bitcoin vs. Gold debate went viral after CZ asked Peter Schiff to authenticate a 999.99-gram gold bar on stage — Schiff couldn’t confirm it, highlighting gold’s trust-based limitations.
  • CZ contrasted gold’s slow, destructive assay process with Bitcoin’s on-chain verification, as BTC rose 1.2% to $92,669 while gold held near $4,187 on Dec. 5.
  • The showdown coincided with deeper institutional shifts: tokenized-gold volume jumped 15%, Bitcoin ETFs now exceed $110B, and central banks continue buying gold while piloting Bitcoin reserves.

Bitcoin vs. Gold took center stage recently, when former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) and longtime gold advocate Peter Schiff finally faced off at Binance Blockchain Week.

The debate delivered a viral moment that crystallized the core philosophical divide between the two assets in front of thousands of attendees and a global livestream audience.

The defining exchange came when CZ produced a 999.99-gram gold bar and asked Schiff to confirm its authenticity on stage.

Schiff’s candid reply — “I’m not sure” — drew roars from the crowd and instantly became the most-watched clip of the event, racking up over 500,000 views within hours across Binance Square and X.

With Bitcoin trading below $90K, and Gold holding steady near $4,204 per ounce, the debate underscored Bitcoin’s verifiable scarcity against gold’s persistent trust problem.

This narrative has resonated strongly in a market still digesting 2025’s institutional adoption wave.

The Gold-Bar Moment That Defined Bitcoin vs. Gold

The exchange unfolded roughly 15 minutes into the 60-minute session. CZ, holding the bar gifted by Kazakhstan’s central bank, challenged Schiff directly: “Is it real?”

After weighing it and examining the markings, Schiff conceded he could not verify purity without laboratory testing.

CZ immediately contrasted this with Bitcoin: “You can verify every single satoshi in seconds, anywhere in the world, with zero trust required.”

Source: @alldexone X

The crowd erupted, and the clip became the fastest-growing video on the platform that day. This wasn’t theatre’s forsake.

Gold verification typically requires destructive assay (melting and spectrometry), a process governed by LBMA standards that costs hundreds of dollars and takes days.

Bitcoin’s supply, capped at 21 million and auditable via any node, offers instant, permissionless proof, a point CZ drove home repeatedly.

Bitcoin vs. Gold on Utility, Payments, and Speculation

Beyond the viral Bitcoin vs. Gold stunt, the two sparred on fundamentals. Schiff labeled Bitcoin “pure speculation” and “a lottery ticket.”

He argued its price derives solely from what the next buyer will pay and that Bitcoin payments are merely “liquidated bets” converted to fiat at point of sale.

CZ countered with real-world examples: Binance still denominates some contracts in BTC, and remittances in Africa now settle in minutes versus months pre-crypto.

On programmability, CZ highlighted Lightning Network settlements under one second and micropayments as low as $0.00001, capabilities physically impossible with gold.

Schiff pushed gold’s 5,000-year track record and industrial demand (electronics, jewelry), claiming 127% five-year returns beat Bitcoin in certain windows.

CZ responded with longer horizons: “From pennies to $100,000 in eight years — gold never did that.” He also noted Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million cap versus gold’s unknown above-ground stock and ongoing mining supply.

Bitcoin price ticked up 1.2% in the hours following the debate, closing at $92,669 on December 4, while spot gold remained flat at $4,187 per ounce, according to Kitco data on December 5.

Tokenized gold platforms like Pax Gold and Tether Gold saw a brief 15% volume spike intraday, per Chainalysis preliminary data on December 5, suggesting the debate actually increased curiosity rather than killing interest.

Bitcoin vs. Gold — The Institutional Verdict in 2025

The Dubai face-off arrived at a pivotal moment. BlackRock, Fidelity, and State Street collectively manage over $110 billion in Bitcoin ETFs as of December 5, while tokenized gold assets remain under $2 billion.

Central banks added 1,037 tonnes of gold in 2024 but simultaneously piloted Bitcoin reserves — Switzerland and Texas led legislative efforts in Q4 2025.

CZ closed with a prediction that resonated across livestream chat: “Give it another five years — the market cap charts will look very different.”

Whether that proves prophetic remains to be seen, but one thing is clear after December 4: in the endless Bitcoin vs. Gold debate, verifiability just scored a knockout blow most of the world actually watched.

Source: https://www.thecoinrepublic.com/2025/12/06/bitcoin-vs-gold-peter-schiff-cz-face-off-on-store-of-value-merits-in-dubai/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers

Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers

The post Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On Dec. 2, Citadel Securities filed a 13-page letter with the SEC arguing that decentralized protocols facilitating tokenized US equity trading already meet statutory definitions of exchanges and broker-dealers, and regulators should treat them accordingly. Two days later, the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee convened a panel on tokenized equities that made clear the question is no longer whether stocks can move on-chain, but whether they can do so without dismantling the permissionless architecture that built DeFi. The gap between those two positions now defines the most consequential regulatory fight in crypto since the Howey test debates. Citadel’s letter arrived at the moment when tokenized equities stopped being a thought experiment. The firm welcomes tokenization in principle but insists that realizing its benefits requires applying “the key bedrock principles and investor protections that underpin the fairness, efficiency, and resiliency of US equity markets.” In other words, the document suggests that companies seeking to trade tokenized Apple shares must comply with Nasdaq rules, including transparent fees, consolidated tape reporting, market surveillance, fair access, and registration as an exchange or broker-dealer. The filing warns that granting broad exemptive relief to DeFi platforms creates a shadow US equity market in which liquidity fragments, retail investors lose Exchange Act protections, and incumbents face regulatory arbitrage from unregistered competitors. Within hours, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams fired back on X, calling Citadel’s position an attempt to “treat software developers of decentralized protocols like centralized intermediaries.” He invoked ConstitutionDAO, the 2021 crowdfunding effort that pooled $47 million in Ethereum to bid on a first-edition Constitution at Sotheby’s, only to lose to Griffin’s $43.2 million bid. Additionally, Adams zeroed in on Citadel’s fair-access argument, calling it “actual nerve” from the dominant player in retail order flow. The exchange captured crypto’s core narrative of permissionless code versus gatekeeper control and…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 02:32
RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved

RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved

The post RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways: Seven major Chinese financial associations issued a coordinated warning against RWA tokenization and all virtual-currency-related activity. Regulators stressed that no RWA tokenization projects are authorized in China, citing risks of fraud, speculation, and illegal fundraising. Institutions and individuals were told to avoid all forms of crypto involvement, while enforcement measures widen to include foreign firms serving mainland users. China has delivered one of its strongest signals yet that crypto-linked products, especially RWA tokenization remain firmly off-limits. A rare joint notice issued by seven national financial associations warns that emerging narratives around “stablecoins,” “air coins,” mining, and tokenized real-world assets are now being used as fronts for fraudulent fundraising, cross-border fund transfers, and market manipulation. Below is a structured, journalist-style breakdown of the alert, written uniquely, with expanded insights to help readers understand the regulatory landscape and its implications for global crypto markets. Read More: China to Shake Crypto Markets With First-Ever Yuan Stablecoin Plan Amid U.S. Dollar Dominance China’s Joint Warning: RWA Tokenization Not Approved and Considered High-Risk China’s latest advisory makes it clear that the rapid rise of RWA tokenization in global markets does not translate into tolerance at home. The notice states that financial regulators have not approved any RWA token issuance, trading, or financing activities inside the mainland. Officials emphasized that tokenizing traditional assets such as bonds, real estate claims, or corporate receivables introduces several layers of risk. These include: Fake or unverifiable underlying assets Operational and governance failures Speculative hype marketed as financial innovation Use of RWA tokens for illegal fundraising or unapproved securities issuance The message is unambiguous: any assumption that RWAs occupy a regulatory grey zone in China is incorrect. They are grouped alongside virtual currencies, mining schemes, and stablecoins as activities that can trigger criminal liability when conducted domestically. Why RWAs…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 02:40