Gold or Bitcoin: which can anchor the next reserve system? 

Last night, in a ZH debate hosted by Real Vision's Ash Bennington, Peter Schiff argued for gold’s role as the future global reserve currency, while Mark Moss made the case for Bitcoin, arguing that it is gaining traction on sovereign balance sheets as of 2025.

They covered America's dwindling reserve status, fundamental monetary properties, and the nature of governments. Here were some highlights for those short on time:

Gold: Tried and True

Schiff argued that Bitcoin does not meet the definition of money and therefore cannot compete with gold, which he described as the foundational reserve asset backing currencies.

He also pointed to current market trends, arguing that “foreign central banks are already moving more of their US dollar reserves into gold because they are losing confidence,” particularly in the U.S. government’s ability to repay debt without massive debasement. While acknowledging recent volatility, he maintained that gold’s decline is temporary and that “real rates are going to collapse, and that’s bullish for gold.”

At a more fundamental level, money must have independent utility, according to Schiff. 

“It has to be a commodity… [with] its own use,” pointing to gold’s role in “industry… jewelry… aerospace… medicine… electronics” as what makes it “better money than other commodities,” and distinct from Bitcoin, which may be transferable but is solely a digital ledger. 

The Issue of Trust

Moss emphasized the importance of custody, arguing that gold ultimately depends on intermediaries (unless stored in one’s basement) even when ownership is legally binding. Governments are not trustworthy and if they or the institution holding possession of the physical gold decide to renege, well ultimately, “they have control over the asset.”

Shipping gold abroad is another matter, filled with counterparty risk and logistical burden. Money needs to be transferable and this is hindered “if [governments] won’t allow you to ship it… or receive it.”

At a more basic level, he argued the issue is unavoidable with physical assets: “you have to trust somebody… [and] trust that they’ll allow you to access it,” concluding that “as long as I don’t have possession of it, I have no control over it.”

Will Central Banks accumulate Bitcoin?

Moss opened by framing Bitcoin within a broader shift in the global monetary system, arguing that reserve assets are moving away from a single dominant anchor toward a mix of holdings. As he put it, “the world is breaking apart… instead of having one… reserve asset, I believe we’ll start to have different assets held in reserve,” with countries diversifying across currencies, commodities, and other stores of value. Within that transition, he argued Bitcoin is already entering the conversation at the sovereign level, projecting that “Bitcoin will have a meaningful allocation in central bank reserves… in the next 20 years.”

Moss argued that if politicians are responding to Bitcoin holders, it suggests scale: “the adoption of Bitcoin is so massive… politicians are forced to bow down to the most powerful voting bloc.”

But is this classic pandering by the political class?

Schiff said “the Bitcoin community has done a very good job of bribing politicians,” framing recent proposals as the result of lobbying and campaign influence rather than monetary necessity. In his view, politicians are responding to a narrow but motivated group of voters, where “when a politician promises to buy Bitcoin… you’re like, yeah, I’m voting for that guy,” effectively bribing voters by promising to use tax dollars to bid up the price of Bitcoin.

The trend, however, may not last. “if the price of Bitcoin collapses, all the political firepower is going to go away.”

Watch the full debate below or listen on Spotify.