The Peter Schiff CZ bitcoin gold debate was interesting. CZ presented physical examples and very good arguments. Peter seems to have evolved to tokenizing gold and wasn't considering Blockchain. Which means counterparty risk and centralised databases. In Peter's eyes, just build a gold backed Blockchain?
Am a long-term Schiff fan but his obsession over bitcoin Vs gold is irksome. Has gold led to a plethora of security based technology? Peter would say yes because computers use gold, should we not celebrate oil and plastic?
Just as Peter has coined this idea of tokenizing gold, it already exists.
Additionally was this circularity around recognising virtual assets and goodwill but failing to acknowledge the many good things bitcoin and Blockchains does in general. Guarantee that if a new Blockchain threatened gold Peter would switch to attacking that. On frequent occasions, Peter says there are far better Blockchains but rarely delves into them.
The best CZ example was carrying gold cross border. It is bizarre that nation states issue a limit but this is a key benefit of Blockchain assets/money. These days, carrying a few ounces of gold would raise questions.
Finally, the one point Peter brings up is the "Greater fool theory". Market places are people buying and selling goods. My challenge, in any asset class there are long-term holders. Housing, money, precious metals, cars. Governments hold a large amount of gold and an increasing amount of seized cryptocurrency assets. With a tokenised billion vault, as long as the fees exceed the platform cost the service is viable in the event of a run. Yet, the fees for Blockchains are lower. The miners will only switch off if totally not viable. This can happen in any monetary system.