The post Schiff Asked To Verify Gold, Says ‘I Don’t Know’ appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A panel featuring gold advocate Peter Schiff and Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao at Binance Blockchain Week highlighted the challenges of verifying physical gold, after Schiff was unable to confirm whether a gold bar presented to him was genuine. The debate involved whether tokenized gold or Bitcoin (BTC) is a better store of value asset based on divisibility, portability, verifiability, durability and supply constraints — key factors in assessing an asset’s viability as money. CZ argued that BTC is a better medium for storing value for several reasons, including the ability for any user to instantly verify the cryptocurrency through a full node or other methods that check a cryptographically secure public ledger.  CZ argues for Bitcoin as a better store of value asset. Source: Binance CZ handed Schiff a gold bar and asked: “It says Kyrgyzstan, 1,000 grams, fine gold, 999.9, and a serial number. Is it real gold?”  “I don’t know,” Schiff responded, drawing laughter and applause from the audience of crypto natives. In October, CZ criticized tokenized gold, saying that the holder must trust the issuer, which led to Thursday’s showdown with Schiff. The debate between gold advocates and Bitcoiners has evolved over the years, with gold advocates, including Schiff, arguing that gold tokenization solves many of gold’s portability, divisibility and verification issues while being useful for decentralized finance (DeFi) applications.  CZ hands Schiff a bar of gold, asking him to verify it. Source: Binance However, Bitcoin advocates say that real-world asset tokenization (RWA), or representing real-world items on a blockchain, does not solve the problems inherent in the physical gold underlying digital gold tokens, including centralization, counterparty risks and expensive audit procedures. Related: Peter Schiff calls Strategy’s model ‘fraud,’ challenges Saylor to debate Fire assaying remains the industry standard for full gold verification There are several… The post Schiff Asked To Verify Gold, Says ‘I Don’t Know’ appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A panel featuring gold advocate Peter Schiff and Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao at Binance Blockchain Week highlighted the challenges of verifying physical gold, after Schiff was unable to confirm whether a gold bar presented to him was genuine. The debate involved whether tokenized gold or Bitcoin (BTC) is a better store of value asset based on divisibility, portability, verifiability, durability and supply constraints — key factors in assessing an asset’s viability as money. CZ argued that BTC is a better medium for storing value for several reasons, including the ability for any user to instantly verify the cryptocurrency through a full node or other methods that check a cryptographically secure public ledger.  CZ argues for Bitcoin as a better store of value asset. Source: Binance CZ handed Schiff a gold bar and asked: “It says Kyrgyzstan, 1,000 grams, fine gold, 999.9, and a serial number. Is it real gold?”  “I don’t know,” Schiff responded, drawing laughter and applause from the audience of crypto natives. In October, CZ criticized tokenized gold, saying that the holder must trust the issuer, which led to Thursday’s showdown with Schiff. The debate between gold advocates and Bitcoiners has evolved over the years, with gold advocates, including Schiff, arguing that gold tokenization solves many of gold’s portability, divisibility and verification issues while being useful for decentralized finance (DeFi) applications.  CZ hands Schiff a bar of gold, asking him to verify it. Source: Binance However, Bitcoin advocates say that real-world asset tokenization (RWA), or representing real-world items on a blockchain, does not solve the problems inherent in the physical gold underlying digital gold tokens, including centralization, counterparty risks and expensive audit procedures. Related: Peter Schiff calls Strategy’s model ‘fraud,’ challenges Saylor to debate Fire assaying remains the industry standard for full gold verification There are several…

Schiff Asked To Verify Gold, Says ‘I Don’t Know’

2025/12/05 23:49

A panel featuring gold advocate Peter Schiff and Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao at Binance Blockchain Week highlighted the challenges of verifying physical gold, after Schiff was unable to confirm whether a gold bar presented to him was genuine.

The debate involved whether tokenized gold or Bitcoin (BTC) is a better store of value asset based on divisibility, portability, verifiability, durability and supply constraints — key factors in assessing an asset’s viability as money.

CZ argued that BTC is a better medium for storing value for several reasons, including the ability for any user to instantly verify the cryptocurrency through a full node or other methods that check a cryptographically secure public ledger. 

CZ argues for Bitcoin as a better store of value asset. Source: Binance

CZ handed Schiff a gold bar and asked: “It says Kyrgyzstan, 1,000 grams, fine gold, 999.9, and a serial number. Is it real gold?” 

“I don’t know,” Schiff responded, drawing laughter and applause from the audience of crypto natives. In October, CZ criticized tokenized gold, saying that the holder must trust the issuer, which led to Thursday’s showdown with Schiff.

The debate between gold advocates and Bitcoiners has evolved over the years, with gold advocates, including Schiff, arguing that gold tokenization solves many of gold’s portability, divisibility and verification issues while being useful for decentralized finance (DeFi) applications. 

CZ hands Schiff a bar of gold, asking him to verify it. Source: Binance

However, Bitcoin advocates say that real-world asset tokenization (RWA), or representing real-world items on a blockchain, does not solve the problems inherent in the physical gold underlying digital gold tokens, including centralization, counterparty risks and expensive audit procedures.

Related: Peter Schiff calls Strategy’s model ‘fraud,’ challenges Saylor to debate

Fire assaying remains the industry standard for full gold verification

There are several industry-wide accepted methods for assaying, or scientifically verifying the precious metals content of gold, according to the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), the international gold bullion trade association that sets industry standards for weight, refinement, trading, storage and reputable custodians. 

These methods include X-Ray Fluorescent Spectroscopy, Ultrasound, and Eddy Current testing, which are costly, require the use of experts and are limited in scope.

X-Ray Fluorescent Spectroscopy is only effective at determining gold content in metals up to 10 microns in thickness, while the other methods have similar issues, meaning they are not “definitive” testing methods, the LBMA says. Only one method leads to 100% verification certainty, according to the LBMA.

A laboratory technician heats gold to check its contents through fire assaying. Source: The lPMI

Fire assaying, or the process of melting down gold to verify its integrity and makeup, is the only way to attain 100% certainty. However, the LBMA characterizes this as a “destructive” testing method.

“At present, there does not appear to be a definitive non-destructive testing solution that can be endorsed, and so the best risk mitigation of sub-standard assay remains the Good Delivery eco-system of refineries and chain of custody,” the LBMA says.

Magazine: Bitcoin to suffer if it can’t catch gold, XRP bulls back in the fight: Trade Secrets

Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/peter-schiff-gold-bar-bitcoin-tokenization-cz?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

South Korea Revisits Crypto Exchange Liability Amid Hacking Risks

South Korea Revisits Crypto Exchange Liability Amid Hacking Risks

The post South Korea Revisits Crypto Exchange Liability Amid Hacking Risks appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Points: South Korea considers no-fault liability for virtual asset exchanges. Legislation aims to enhance operator accountability in cyber attacks. Pending fines could reach 3% of sales for hacking cases. South Korea’s Financial Services Commission is contemplating imposing no-fault liability on virtual asset operators for hacking-related damages, according to a Yonhap News Agency report on December 7. This potential legislation aligns virtual asset operators with financial institutions, impacting regulatory dynamics and market stability in South Korea’s evolving crypto sector. South Korea Targets Crypto Exchanges with 3% Sales Fines The Financial Services Commission (FSC) of South Korea is considering adding a clause to its draft legislation, imposing no-fault liability on virtual asset operators. This move follows a series of 20 computer incidents on top Korean won exchanges, emphasizing the need for enhanced security measures. The FSC aims to align virtual asset exchange liabilities with those of financial companies. South Korean lawmakers are debating stricter penalties, with proposed fines reaching 3% of sales revenue, paralleling measures in the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Current maximum fines are capped at 5 billion won. This legislative shift reflects the government’s commitment to improving user protection and response strategies in the crypto sector. Industry reactions have been mixed. While there has been no official statement from major exchanges like Upbit and Bithumb, stakeholders are closely monitoring developments. Discussions on cryptocurrency forums and social media emphasize the potential impact on exchange compliance efforts and security enhancements. No-Fault Liability: Potential Game-Changer for Crypto Compliance Did you know? The concept of no-fault liability is already applied to South Korean banks for voice phishing cases, setting a precedent for proposed crypto exchange regulations. According to CoinMarketCap, Bitcoin (BTC), as of 06:31 UTC on December 7, 2025, has a market cap of $1.79 trillion. The 24-hour trading volume declined by 41.05%…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 14:37