In recent days, social media circulated a post attributing to financial expert Peter Schiff his statement during a debate with CZ, the founder of Binance:
"I cannot draw a picture of a 'hamburger' and say this is digital food... it's like Bitcoin!"
After research and verification, the accuracy of these specific quotes from the official debate at "Binance Blockchain Week" in Dubai cannot be confirmed. I found no recordings or documented reports from this event that prove this exact dialogue.
But what is certain is that the idea itself aligns perfectly with Schiff's long-known position: rejecting Bitcoin as an asset of real value, and his constant comparison of it to 'just a digital illusion' that is no different from a hamburger drawing that does not satisfy hunger! ๐โก๏ธ๐ผ๏ธ
---
๐ The real essence of the debate: price or value?
What is worth contemplating here is not only the accuracy of the quote, but the essence of the historical debate it raises:
๐น Peter Schiff's perspective (and skeptics):
ยท Bitcoin is just an 'image' - a digital representation without a tangible asset backing it
ยท No intrinsic value - cannot be used to produce something like gold
ยท Relying on it will lead to hunger - metaphorically, like a hungry person's reliance on a food drawing!
๐น Bitcoin supporters' perspective (like CZ most likely):
ยท The value of Bitcoin in its network - like the value of the internet in its connection, not in copper wires
ยท Transformational asset - an entirely new decentralized financial system
ยท Digital scarcity - limited supply protocol (only 21 million units)
---
๐ฑ The closest analogy to understand true value
Imagine with me this simple example I shared:
A mobile phone disconnected from the network = just a piece of metal and plastic โ price of raw materials
The same phone connected to the internet = a gateway for communication, knowledge, and trade โ immense value
Bitcoin without its network = lines of code โ minimal price
Bitcoin with the blockchain network = a global decentralized value transfer system โ transformative value
---
๐ค Summary: Why is this discussion important?
The discussion is not just about 'who wins the debate', but about how we define 'value' in the age of digitization:
The traditional concept of value vs. the new digital concept of value
โข Tangible physical asset โข Intangible digital asset
โข Traditional use value โข Networked and functional value
โข Controlled by a central intermediary โข A global decentralized system
Bitcoin is essentially testing our very definition of value - should value be tangible? Or can it exist in a technical protocol that changes the financial game rules?
---
๐ญ Personal opinion
Even if Schiff did not say these exact words, he summarizes a real challenge: how do we explain the value of something intangible to generations raised on the concept of 'material value'?
The deeper question: if humans can agree that a banknote worth 100 dollars (which is just paper and printing), why can't we agree on the value of one Bitcoin (which is a secure and rare digital protocol)?
What do you think of this historical debate? Do you stand with the 'tangible intrinsic value' team or the 'digital functional value' team?
