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 service@support.mexc.com 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

US Prosecutors Seek 12-Year Prison for Do Kwon Over Terra Collapse

US Prosecutors Seek 12-Year Prison for Do Kwon Over Terra Collapse

        Highlights:  US prosecutors requested a 12-year prison sentence for Do Kwon after the Terra collapse. Terraform’s $40 billion downfall caused huge losses and sparked a long downturn in crypto markets.  Do Kwon will face sentencing on December 11 and must give up $19 million in earnings.   US prosecutors have asked a judge to give Do Kwon, Terraform Labs co-founder, a 12-year prison sentence for his role in the remarkable $40 billion collapse of the Terra and Luna tokens. The request also seeks to finalize taking away Kwon’s criminal earnings.  The court filing came in New York’s Southern District on Thursday. This is about four months after Kwon admitted guilt on two charges: wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud. Prosecutors said Kwon caused more losses than Samuel Bankman-Fried, Alexander Mashinsky, and Karl Sebastian Greenwood combined.  U.S. prosecutors have asked a New York federal judge to sentence Terraform Labs co-founder Do Kwon to 12 years in prison, calling his role in the 2022 TerraUSD collapse a “colossal” fraud that triggered broader crypto-market failures, including the downfall of FTX. Sentencing is… — Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) December 5, 2025  Terraform Collapse Shakes Crypto Market Authorities explained that Terraform’s collapse affected the entire crypto market. They said it helped trigger what is now called the ‘Crypto Winter.’ The filing stressed that Kwon’s conduct harmed many investors and the broader crypto world. On Thursday, prosecutors said Kwon must give up just over $19 million. They added that they will not ask for any additional restitution. They said: “The cost and time associated with calculating each investor-victim’s loss, determining whether the victim has already been compensated through the pending bankruptcy, and then paying out a percentage of the victim’s losses, will delay payment and diminish the amount of money ultimately paid to victims.” Authorities will sentence Do Kwon on December 11. They charged him in March 2023 with multiple crimes, including securities fraud, market manipulation, money laundering, and wire fraud. All connections are tied to his role at Terraform. After Terra fell in 2022, authorities lost track of Kwon until they arrested him in Montenegro on unrelated charges and sent him to the U.S. Do Kwon’s Legal Case and Sentencing In April last year, a jury ruled that both Terraform and Kwon committed civil fraud. They found the company and its co-founder misled investors about how the business operated and its finances. Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, submitted the sentencing request in November.  TERRA STATEMENT: “We are very disappointed with the verdict, which we do not believe is supported by the evidence. We continue to maintain that the SEC does not have the legal authority to bring this case at all, and we are carefully weighing our options and next steps.” — Zack Guzmán  (@zGuz) April 5, 2024  The news of Kwon’s sentencing caused Terraform’s token, LUNA, to jump over 40% in one day, from $0.07 to $0.10. Still, this rise remains small compared to its all-time high of more than $19, which the ecosystem reached before collapsing in May 2022. In a November court filing, Do Kwon’s lawyers asked for a maximum five-year sentence. They argued for a shorter term partly because he could face up to 40 years in prison in South Korea, where prosecutors are also pursuing a case against him. The legal team added that even if Kwon serves time in the U.S., he would not be released freely. He would be moved from prison to an immigration detention center and then sent to Seoul to face pretrial detention for his South Korea charges.    eToro Platform    Best Crypto Exchange   Over 90 top cryptos to trade Regulated by top-tier entities User-friendly trading app 30+ million users    9.9   Visit eToro eToro is a multi-asset investment platform. The value of your investments may go up or down. Your capital is at risk. Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. This is a high-risk investment, and you should not expect to be protected if something goes wrong. 
Share
Coinstats2025/12/06 02:14
Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

The post Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. “It’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress,” writes Pipes. Getty Images Washington is addicted to taxing success. Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is floating a plan to skim half the patent earnings from inventions developed at universities with federal funding. It’s being sold as a way to shore up programs like Social Security. In reality, it’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress. Yes, taxpayer dollars support early-stage research. But the real payoff comes later—in the jobs created, cures discovered, and industries launched when universities and private industry turn those discoveries into real products. By comparison, the sums at stake in patent licensing are trivial. Universities collectively earn only about $3.6 billion annually in patent income—less than the federal government spends on Social Security in a single day. Even confiscating half would barely register against a $6 trillion federal budget. And yet the damage from such a policy would be anything but trivial. The true return on taxpayer investment isn’t in licensing checks sent to Washington, but in the downstream economic activity that federally supported research unleashes. Thanks to the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, universities and private industry have powerful incentives to translate early-stage discoveries into real-world products. Before Bayh-Dole, the government hoarded patents from federally funded research, and fewer than 5% were ever licensed. Once universities could own and license their own inventions, innovation exploded. The result has been one of the best returns on investment in government history. Since 1996, university research has added nearly $2 trillion to U.S. industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs, and launched more than 19,000 startups. Those companies pay…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 03:26