SKN | Tucker Carlson Challenges Peter Schiff on Bitcoin’s Role as a Potential Global Reserve Asset

A renewed debate over Bitcoin’s long-term role in the global financial system surfaced this week after U.S. media personality Tucker Carlson pressed gold advocate Peter Schiff on whether Bitcoin could eventually replace the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency. The exchange comes as confidence in fiat systems weakens, asset markets diverge sharply, and policymakers explore alternatives to dollar-centric monetary dominance.

At the time of the interview, Bitcoin was trading near $88,000, while gold surged past $5,000 per ounce, underscoring a widening split between digital and traditional hard-asset narratives. The conversation highlighted this divergence, framing Bitcoin not only as a speculative asset, but as a political and monetary proposition increasingly difficult to ignore.

Bitcoin, Speculation, and the Reserve Asset Debate

Schiff reiterated his long-held view that Bitcoin has “no actual use” beyond speculation, dismissing calls for a U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve as a “taxpayer-funded bailout” for early adopters. According to Schiff, Bitcoin’s demand is driven entirely by price appreciation expectations rather than productive economic activity.

Carlson challenged this position directly, questioning how Bitcoin differs materially from gold or equities, which also rely on market confidence. Schiff countered that Bitcoin is a non-income-producing digital asset with no non-monetary demand, arguing that its value would collapse if central banks attempted to liquidate large holdings.

While Schiff acknowledged that both fiat currencies and Bitcoin are faith-based systems, he argued that Bitcoin lacks the physical utility that allows gold to retain value across cycles. Gold, he noted, is used in electronics, aerospace, medicine, and jewelry, providing intrinsic demand independent of monetary policy.

Macro Pressures and Dollar Skepticism

The debate unfolded against mounting skepticism toward U.S. fiscal policy. Schiff criticized official inflation metrics, claiming the Consumer Price Index understates real price pressures and masks the impact of government spending. He also attacked President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” arguing it expanded deficits by maintaining Biden-era spending while cutting taxes.

These critiques resonate as U.S. debt levels climb above $34 trillion, and real interest rates fluctuate amid persistent inflation risks. Carlson framed Bitcoin as a potential hedge against declining dollar credibility, asking why a decentralized, finite-supply asset could not fill the role historically occupied by gold.

Gold’s Resurgence Versus Bitcoin Volatility

Market data illustrates the philosophical divide. Gold rose approximately 17% in January, reaching record highs amid geopolitical tension and currency devaluation fears. Bitcoin, by contrast, briefly dipped below $86,000, reflecting its higher volatility profile despite strong long-term performance.

Schiff pointed to this divergence as evidence that investors seeking stability prefer tangible assets during periods of stress. He also promoted tokenized, fully backed gold, suggesting blockchain technology can modernize payments without relying on speculative token appreciation.

Investor Psychology and Strategic Positioning

Beyond asset mechanics, the exchange revealed a deeper split in investor psychology. Bitcoin supporters increasingly view the asset as digital sovereignty insurance, while critics see it as momentum-driven capital misallocation. As adoption expands among institutions and sovereign actors, this tension is likely to intensify.

Whether Bitcoin evolves into a reserve-grade asset or remains a volatile alternative will depend on regulatory clarity, liquidity resilience, and its ability to withstand macro stress without state backing. What remains clear is that Bitcoin is no longer dismissed quietly—it is debated at the highest levels of monetary discourse.