Get the latest crypto news, updates, and reports by subscribing to our free newsletter.
Giấy phép số 4978/GP-TTĐT do Sở Thông tin và Truyền thông Hà Nội cấp ngày 14 tháng 10 năm 2019 / Giấy phép SĐ, BS GP ICP số 2107/GP-TTĐT do Sở TTTT Hà Nội cấp ngày 13/7/2022.
© 2026 Index.vn
Production of bean sprouts using the toxin 6-Benzylaminopurine (6-BAP) has led to criminal proceedings in Lao Cai, authorities said, after police uncovered a facility supplying toxic sprouts to wholesale markets. On April 4, Lao Cai Provincial Police announced the indictment of Chu Thi Hoa (born 1990, from Phu Tho) for…
Schiff’s core point is straightforward: if Bitcoin is meant to function as a better version of gold, it should not lag the metal during strong safe-haven moves. In the current stretch, gold has been printing fresh highs and silver has also strengthened, while Bitcoin has failed to keep pace.
That divergence gives Schiff an opening to challenge the market’s focus on BTC as “digital gold.” While this is not a new argument from him, the timing matters. His criticism tends to intensify when gold attracts buying interest and Bitcoin chops or sells off.
In essence, Schiff is arguing that market behavior is revealing what investors actually prefer when they want traditional protection. When demand shifts toward conventional hedges, the argument goes, investors buy bullion rather than Bitcoin.
Bitcoin supporters have long framed BTC as a scarce, non-sovereign asset with gold-like characteristics. The analogy is reinforced by a fixed supply cap, portability, and independence from central banks. Over the last cycle, ETF adoption and rising institutional ownership have further strengthened the narrative.
However, the article notes that price action has not behaved the same way. Bitcoin often trades like a high-volatility macro asset: it can rally alongside liquidity, technology stocks, and broader risk appetite, then fall sharply when markets de-risk. Gold typically follows a different pattern, particularly when geopolitical stress or recession fears drive flows.
This does not, by itself, disprove the “digital gold” thesis. It does suggest that the thesis remains conditional rather than settled fact, because scarcity is only one part of the equation—investor behavior and market structure matter as well.
The article draws a distinction between gold’s long monetary history, central bank demand, and lower volatility, and Bitcoin’s fixed supply alongside stronger upside reflexivity but also higher sensitivity to leverage, sentiment swings, and a comparatively younger investor base.
Schiff’s argument is presented as pressing on a real weakness, even if it may overstate the case. The key point is that short-term underperformance versus gold does not prove Bitcoin has failed as a store of value; it does indicate that BTC has not fully escaped its identity as a risk-on asset.
The discussion is framed as arriving at a relevant moment for crypto markets. Narratives can change quickly, but correlation regimes do not. If Bitcoin wants to carry the “digital gold” label, the article argues, it needs to behave that way when macro stress rises—not only when liquidity is expanding and risk assets are broadly supported.
Schiff is likely to continue highlighting divergences between Bitcoin and gold. The article’s cleaner takeaway is less about labels and more about trade behavior: gold and Bitcoin may both be hard assets, but they are not the same trade.
In brief\n\nBitcoin dropped to about $93,000, falling back below the EMA50 and putting its recent golden cross at risk of invalidation. The global crypto market cap stands at $3.15 trillion, down 2.38% in 24 hours. On Myriad Markets, 82% of the money is betting on Bitcoin pumping to $100K before…
