In the recent X post, Schiff challenged Saylor’s view of Bitcoin as “digital energy.”
Schiff questioned the practicality of this description, asking how Bitcoin could ever generate power. He argued that the digital asset is more speculative than a resource capable of producing tangible energy or utility.
Schiff strengthened his argument by contrasting Bitcoin with crude oil. He emphasized that crude oil is irreplaceable in sustaining industries and human survival. Also, he warned that its absence could lead to mass starvation.
Schiff then posed a rhetorical question: “If Bitcoin disappeared, what critical function would it leave behind?”
Industry figures like “Rich Dad Poor Dad” author Robert Kiyosaki share Saylor’s view, praising Bitcoin’s value and urging traders to consider investing. Kiyosaki consistently highlights Bitcoin’s potential as a hedge against economic instability and an essential asset for financial growth.
However, Schiff views these narratives as misleading attempts to elevate Bitcoin’s status without addressing its practical limitations. Schiff’s critique underscores a broader ideological divide within the financial world.
While Bitcoin advocates like Saylor highlight its potential to transform finance, critics like Schiff doubt its practical use and sustainability. These divided views reflect ongoing debates about Bitcoin’s true value and purpose.
This article was originally published on U.Today
Source: Cryptocurrency - investing.com
