Peter Schiff’s Bitcoin Claim Examined (2025)

Overview

In a widely reported exchange at an industry blockchain conference, economist and gold advocate Peter Schiff argued that Bitcoin does not create real wealth, asserting it merely redistributes value between buyers and sellers. This perspective has resurfaced periodically as critics challenge cryptocurrencies on philosophical and economic grounds.

This article examines the logic behind that claim, contrasts it with observable market dynamics through 2025, and assesses whether Bitcoin’s network and ecosystem generate measurable economic utility beyond simple price speculation.

What was claimed

Schiff’s central assertion can be summarized as follows:

• Bitcoin is a non-productive asset that only transfers wealth between participants.
• The addition of new Bitcoin units does not create real wealth for the economy.
• Unrealized gains give holders a false impression of value until they try to liquidate.

These points reflect a common criticism: that intangible digital assets lack intrinsic productive output compared with businesses that generate goods, services, or cash flow.

Defining “wealth” in a modern economy

Before judging whether Bitcoin creates wealth, it is useful to clarify what “wealth” means in contemporary economic terms. Wealth can be:

• Physical capital (machinery, real estate).
• Financial assets (stocks, bonds) that represent claims on future cash flows.
• Intangible assets (software, intellectual property, network protocols) that enable new economic activity.

Modern economies increasingly derive value from intangible systems: global payment rails, cloud services, internet infrastructure and digital platforms all generate measurable GDP contribution without being physical commodities.

How Bitcoin generates utility

Bitcoin’s critics often conflate price with utility. While prices fluctuate, utility arises from the network attributes and services that Bitcoin enables.

Borderless settlement and censorship resistance

Bitcoin provides a way to transfer value across borders without intermediaries. For people and businesses in jurisdictions with limited banking access, reliable cross-border settlement is a practical economic benefit.

Scarcity and monetary properties

The protocol enforces a capped supply and predictable issuance schedule. This scarcity characteristic gives the asset monetary properties that some institutions and individuals use for portfolio diversification and treasury management.

Verifiable ownership and programmability

Bitcoin’s cryptographic model gives verifiable, bearer-style ownership. Combined with evolving tooling (custody solutions, multi-signature, and Layer 2 payment channels), that ownership model supports new financial primitives.

Infrastructure and services

Bitcoin supports an ecosystem of services that create jobs and revenue: exchanges, custodians, mining operations, node operators, software developers, and payment processors. These businesses generate economic output and, therefore, contribute to real-world wealth.

Evidence from 2025 market trends

Through 2025 several trends have provided new context for evaluating Bitcoin’s economic role:

• Institutional participation: Institutional custody, asset-allocation mandates, and broader corporate treasury experimentation continued to rise. This has expanded the depth and liquidity of markets.
• ETF and regulated product growth: Exchange-traded and other regulated investment products have broadened investor access, which changes price discovery and professionalizes custody and reporting.
• On-chain adoption metrics: Active addresses, transaction throughput on Layer 2 networks, and the growth of payment channels demonstrate utility beyond speculative trading.
• Remittance and payment use cases: In several corridors, crypto-native rails have reduced friction and cost for cross-border payments compared with legacy systems.
• Mining and energy: Mining continues to professionalize, with increasing use of stranded or renewable energy in many regions, responding to both cost and regulatory pressures.

These factors do not prove that Bitcoin is unequivocally superior to every alternative, but they demonstrate that the asset and its network support a range of economic activities that cannot be dismissed as mere zero-sum transfers.

Where the “zero-sum” argument falls short

The claim that Bitcoin only transfers wealth presumes that the network itself offers no independent value. This overlooks several key mechanisms:

• Network externalities: As adoption increases, the utility for each participant tends to rise—this is not a zero-sum effect.
• New market creation: Bitcoin and its surrounding services have created markets for custody, insurance, compliance, and infrastructure—each producing economic output.
• Payment and settlement efficiency: Lower friction in certain use cases translates into real cost savings for businesses and individuals.

Comparing Bitcoin to traditional productive assets is a category error in some respects. Stocks represent claims on cash flows from businesses; Bitcoin is a monetary network and digital commodity that can underpin payments, collateral, and store-of-value use cases. Both asset classes coexist and serve distinct economic functions.

Realized vs. unrealized gains

A common line of criticism is that unrealized gains are illusory until realized. That is technically true: gains are not locked in until an exit occurs. However, unrealized gains still influence economic behavior:

• Capital allocation: Investors may allocate resources, take collateral, or invest in startups based on balance-sheet value.
• Credit markets: Collateralization of digital assets can facilitate lending and credit creation.
• Portfolio rebalancing: Perceived valuation affects decisions that drive further economic activity.

Therefore, even unrealized appreciation can catalyze economic actions that produce real-world outcomes.

Counterarguments and acknowledged risks

To present a balanced view, it is important to acknowledge legitimate concerns about Bitcoin:

• Volatility: High price volatility can impair suitability as a medium of exchange or stable store of value for many users.
• Regulatory uncertainty: Changing regulatory stances in major jurisdictions remain a substantial risk to adoption and institutional participation.
• Environmental scrutiny: Although mining has trended toward greater use of renewables, energy consumption and sustainability remain debated topics.
• Scaling and UX: Onboarding broader populations depends on improved user experience and scaling solutions.

These risks influence whether and how Bitcoin’s economic utility is realized at scale. They do not, however, negate the existence of the utility itself.

Practical examples of Bitcoin-driven value

Concrete use cases illustrate how Bitcoin contributes to economic activity:

• Cross-border payments: Businesses and remittance services adopting crypto rails have reported faster settlement times and lower fees in specific corridors.
• Corporate treasuries: Some firms allocate a portion of treasury to Bitcoin, citing diversification benefits and monetary hedge properties.
• Financial products and services: The rise of custody, lending against crypto collateral, and insurance products creates recurring revenue streams.
• Innovation and employment: Startups building layer-2 solutions, wallets, and compliance tooling continue to attract investment and create jobs.

2025 outlook and evolving frameworks

In 2025 the market environment remains dynamic. Key themes to watch include:

• Regulatory clarity: Evolving frameworks in major economies could either facilitate institutional flows or constrain certain services.
• Layer 2 and interoperability: Continued technical improvements aim to reduce fees and latency, making utility more accessible.
• Institutional adoption: Broader participation by professional investors can deepen liquidity and stabilize market microstructure over time.
• Macro environment: Inflation dynamics, interest rates, and geopolitical factors will influence demand for alternative monetary assets.

These are not definitive endorsements but indicators that the question of Bitcoin’s economic role continues to evolve with market structure and regulation.

Conclusion

Peter Schiff’s critique that Bitcoin “creates no wealth” encapsulates an important philosophical debate about what constitutes economic value. However, labeling Bitcoin as purely zero-sum overlooks substantial network-driven utility, market infrastructure, and measurable services that have emerged around the protocol.

Bitcoin behaves differently from productive corporate equity, but it nevertheless enables economic activities—cross-border settlement, new financial services, and an ecosystem of firms and jobs—that contribute to real-world wealth. That contribution is conditioned by volatility, regulatory risk, and technological constraints, all of which will shape Bitcoin’s trajectory in 2025 and beyond.

For policymakers, investors, and market participants, the practical question is not whether Bitcoin fits a single classical definition of “productive asset,” but how its capabilities can be integrated into broader financial systems while managing risks and preserving market integrity.

Disclaimer: This post is a compilation of publicly available information.
MEXC does not verify or guarantee the accuracy of third-party content.
Readers should conduct their own research before making any investment or participation decisions.