Bitcoin vs Gold

I just watched an interview between Peter Schiff and Jack Mallers about gold versus Bitcoin. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in either asset, or more generally to those interested in the theories of economics and money in general:

Peter Schiff & Jack Mallers Debate Bitcoin Vs. Gold, Collapse Of Dollar

Peter represented the pro-gold side of this debate, with Jack taking the pro-Bitcoin side.

The premise

The debate itself takes a lot of premises for granted. In particular, both sides view rampant money printing and an out-of-control money supply as being unsound foundations for an economy. While I personally agree with this completely, it’s not at all a universally held belief. Many economists in fact recommend having low levels of inflation in the economy, due to the dangers of deflation.

The debate never touched on justifying these premises since both sides completely agreed. If you’re a viewer (or reader of this post) who hasn’t completely bought into this way of thinking, the discussion may be somewhat confusing. I may decide to write a post on this topic on its own in the future. (And if that’s something you’re interested in, let me know, I’m more likely to write it up if people want to see it.)

In any event, the upshot of this is that both parties agree that current fiat currency, without any backing by a hard asset, is a mistake. They both seemed to agree that the major breakdown in fiat currency was the complete removal of the gold standard in 1971, though they have crucial differences of opinion about why that happened which I’ll cover below.

The question is: what asset is better for fixing this problem, gold or Bitcoin?

Which asset is money?

Overall, I thought both sides represented their arguments well, and I’ll reference some of them below. There was only one piece of the debate that I think completely missed the point, but it’s crucial enough that I’ll start my analysis there. Peter and Jack discussed, at length, whether gold or Bitcoin counted as money. This of course begs the question: what’s your definition of money? Using the Wikipedia definition:

Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts, such as taxes, in a particular country or socio-economic context. The primary functions which distinguish money are: medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.

That first bit, “generally accepted as payment,” got a lot of attention in the debate. There were discussions for a while about whether you could walk into a store and buy things with either gold or Bitcoin, and moreso, if goods were priced in gold or Bitcoin. Both sides tried to make arguments around this claiming their side was money.

My disagreement on this part of the debate is that, in my opinion fairly obviously, neither asset is generally used as “money” today, at least by this definition of “used to buy goods in stores.” Instead, both assets are more generally used as investments, speculation, store of value, or any other long-term holding term you’d want to use. So by the focus of the debate, both assets fail at being money.

But that’s the wrong question! It’s not about whether or not these assets are money. Instead, I would want to ask two separate questions:

• In an ideal world, which asset works better as money?
• Which asset has the best path forward to becoming money?

In other words, I don’t think the question is about today. The question is instead about which future (gold vs Bitcoin) is better, and which future is more attainable.

And I think the debate provided a lot of food for thought to analyze these two questions.

Intrinsic value of gold

Peter pointed out that gold has intrinsic value. Gold is desired for jewelry, manufacturing, technology, and other purposes, in addition to being sought as a store of value. Jack was fairly dismissive of this, since money doesn’t need to have any intrinsic value. It only needs to be widely accepted. (Case in point: when I receive a stimulus check from the US government as a wire transfer into my bank account, there is 0 “intrinsic value” to that digital update of my bank account, but I can use it as money regardless.)

While I agree with Jack that intrinsic value is not a necessary property of money, I have to give the win to Peter on this. While intrinsic value isn’t necessary, it’s certainly a perk, and makes it less likely that the asset will stop being accepted for payment of some kind in the future. And we can see this with how the price of gold behaved after the end of the gold standard: it started to rise significantly.

Intrinsic value of Bitcoin

On the other hand, in the debate, neither side ever really applied the term “intrinsic value” to Bitcoin. Instead, Jack made some other and very strong arguments for advantages of Bitcoin over gold, namely:

• Built in network for settlement. By contrast, gold can easily be exchanged physically with others locally, but cannot be settled in a global economy without the assistance of institutions or governments.
• Completely fixed supply at 21 million BTC. By contrast, gold has an uncapped supply, which can be expanded through (expensive) mining.
• Ability to self custody funds.
• Censorship resistance.

Are these “intrinsic value?” Probably not, but it’s really an issue of semantics. The reality is that Bitcoin does provide these features, and gold mostly doesn’t. You could argue that physical gold is completely censorship-resistant because you can transfer gold to others without external approval. But that only works locally, not for non-local payments, which will be an important point in a bit.

My point in this section is that there are absolutely features of Bitcoin which gold does not have, and which might make it a better money. Is that more important than the “intrinsic value” argument for gold? That’s a highly subjective question. But my subjectivity says that yes, these make Bitcoin a better vehicle to act as money than gold.

Volatility

Another topic that was brought up was the volatility of Bitcoin. How can you use an asset as money when its price swings regularly between $55,000 and $65,000? (And that’s just in the past month!) The debate had some back-and-forth about the difference between volatility and risk. That was another semantics issue that didn’t matter much to me. The fact is, the price of Bitcoin in terms of dollars does fluctuate significantly.

Does that make Bitcoin a worse money? I’d say no, it doesn’t. It might be a barrier to the adoption of Bitcoin as money, since people will be hesitant to accept payment in an asset who’s “real world” value changes so dramatically. But remember, I’m rephrasing the question not to “is Bitcoin money,” but rather to “is Bitcoin a good future money?” In that world, the fact that the exchange rate with another currency changes significantly is not a barrier to usage as money.

But perhaps more directly, it seems likely to me that Bitcoin being adopted as money would cause a significant reduction in volatility. Instead of exchanging Bitcoin for dollars each time you want to buy something, people would be living in a new Bitcoin-denominated economy. Fluctuations in exchange rate don’t preclude that.

And yes, this argument equally applies to gold being a good money. The difference is that the volatility of gold is significantly lower than Bitcoin.

What’s the better money?

I see both sides of the argument as valid and strong. For me, gold has the advantages of intrinsic value, existing adoption, and likely the longest track record in human history as being used as money. Those are some solid advantages.

By contrast, Bitcoin has a fully fixed supply and a network that allows for fast global settlement and self custody.

We could get into the other details discussed, but in my opinion none of the other points really address which is the better money overall.

For me, Bitcoin has a serious advantage here. Lack of centralized control is vital. And it becomes more so when we analyze the second question.

Which money can win?

I’ll say directly: I don’t see a world in which gold ends up being money again. I don’t think fiat currencies can go back to a gold standard without some insane debasement of the currency. And there’s no reason to believe the will exists among governments, politicians, and institutions to turn off the money printer. All the conditions that led to the removal of the gold standard in 1971 still apply today.

This is where Jack’s arguments really hit home for me. At a local level, maybe I could convince people in my town to accept gold coins. But my local supermarket is part of a multinational conglomerate. They won’t be sending shipments of gold coins across the world to pay vendors. The globalization of the economy is a large part of why the world moved towards the dollar–while still backed by the gold standard–as its reserve currency in the 20th century. It was easy to move around a representation of gold. The removal of the gold standard was simply the next logical step, allowing the US to create money out of thin air.

By contrast, Bitcoin is ready to compete now. There are systems already which allow you to connect credit cards and other “normal” payment methods to your Bitcoin balance. Services (such as Jack’s Strike) allow you to easily convert your paycheck to Bitcoin. Bitcoin may not win at displacing the dollar, but there’s a clear plan from the pro-Bitcoin side towards making it easy to use Bitcoin while still keeping your funds in a non-inflationary asset. Market forces and the self-interest of many can simply continue to drive adoption. (This is another topic I’ve been thinking about writing a post on, so if the details here seem flimsy, ask for details and I might write that one up too.)

To be fair, gold could do much of this as well. Peter mentioned tokenization of gold multiple times in the debate. And I don’t disagree with him overall. However, in practice, Jack’s point stands that this relies on institutions and governments, and there’s no reason to believe another kind of debasement couldn’t happen again in the future. And empirically, we haven’t seen a move back towards the gold standard in the past fifty years, while the Bitcoin revolution has momentum.

In other words, if you asked me to place a bet on which asset will end up being used as money at scale, my bet is on Bitcoin.

Fallible humans

I used my own analysis, not Peter and Jack’s, at the end of the previous section. Let me go back to the actual arguments they made. We know that human beings made a decision to move the US away from the gold standard and towards our current fiat system. Both Peter and Jack believe this was a mistake. But their takes on this are slightly–but importantly–different:

• Peter points to “fallible humans” as the problem. Politicians got greedy, wanted more money to print to buy votes, wage wars, buy off lobbyists, or whatever else they wanted to do. It’s not an inherent flaw in gold, it’s an inherent flaw in people.
• Jack agrees with the fallible humans part (I think). But he lays the blame directly on gold itself. Because gold necessitates centralization with institutions and governments to allow for global trade, a gold-based money will always put too much power in the hands of those fallible people. Bitcoin, by contrast, has no centralization of power at all.

Jack’s argument overall wins the day for me.

Takeaways

The debate was great, and I’d recommend others take the time to watch it. My conclusion above is clear, I think Bitcoin has the edge for becoming a new money system. But that’s just theoretical. What should individuals do about all this?

At the moment, neither Bitcoin nor gold is used as money, at least not widely. Right now, for the most part, by buying these assets, you’re hoping for a long-term store of value which defeats inflation.

Jack made some good data-driven points that, in fact, gold has not achieved that since the end of the gold standard. Gold has averaged a 7% annual appreciation, while average consumer prices have risen 8% annually. Stocks have gone up even more at 11%. (I haven’t checked these numbers myself, just repeating them.)

Bitcoin, by contrast, has massively outperformed everything over its lifetime. It’s gone from less than a dollar to over $60,000 in the span of 13 years. That’s an unbelievably good asset to invest in… if it continues.

And that’s where Peter’s points land solidly too. Judging Bitcoin based on only 13 years of data, and trying to extrapolate to the future from that, is naive at best. While in theory Bitcoin is poised to be a great money, and at least a powerful store of value, it’s entirely possible that it will fail. Gold, by contrast, has little risk of losing a significant portion of its value over time, barring significant technological changes making it cheaper to increase the supply (e.g., space mining, alchemy, new terrestrial deposits).

One of Peter’s last comments was to recommend Bitcoiners “take profits” on their Bitcoin and hedge with some gold investments. I put “take profits” in scare quotes, since it implicitly identifies Bitcoin as nothing more than a speculative asset, presuming Peter’s world view that Bitcoin is not money. Nonetheless, I think this is wise advice.

What I’m doing

I wrote up another post that I haven’t published yet talking about my current stance on Bitcoin, I’ll likely publish it in the near future. I’ll get into my overall approach there. For this specific debate, I can say that I put money into both Bitcoin and gold, and intend to continue doing so. I have no intention of selling my holdings in either in the foreseeable future. And I always keep enough fiat around to cover unexpected events (home repair, job loss, etc).