A debate over returns on bitcoin and gold has flared again. Michael Saylor (마이클 세일러), chairman of Strategy, flatly rejected Peter Schiff’s claim that bitcoin has lagged gold and stocks over the past five years. Saylor said the comparison period distorts the conclusion. On April 5, local time, blockchain outlet BeInCrypto reported that the dispute between the two has intensified again.

The key issue is the starting point used to calculate returns. Schiff claimed bitcoin rose about 12 percent over the past five years, while the Nasdaq, the S&P 500, gold and silver posted gains of 50 to 180 percent. He asked why anyone should keep holding bitcoin if the appeal of bitcoin investment is long-term performance, and criticised the investment rationale.

The period Schiff presented became controversial because it starts around April 2021, when bitcoin was near its all-time high of about $69,000. That span includes the sharp fall in the crypto market in 2022 and the subsequent recovery phase, raising criticism that interpretations of performance can vary widely depending on the starting point. Over the same period, the gold price rose from about $1,780 to more than $4,700, posting a gain of more than 160 percent.

Schiff also said Strategy shares (MSTR) should be assessed separately from bitcoin performance. While noting the stock has risen about 68 percent over five years, he said it reflects excessive expectations by investors and drew a line between that and bitcoin’s own performance. He warned that Saylor was able to keep buying bitcoin excessively because investors were willing to pay too much for MSTR, and urged investors to sell before MSTR collapses.

Saylor countered by citing annualised returns and a longer investment period. Using August 2020, when Strategy began a bitcoin-focused treasury strategy, he said bitcoin’s annualised return is about 36 percent. He compared that with gold at 16 percent, the Nasdaq 100 at 15 percent, the S&P 500 at 14 percent, real estate at 5 percent and bonds at minus 1 percent, and stressed that conclusions change completely depending on the period selected.

Strategy’s aggressive bitcoin buying strategy is also at the centre of the debate. The company holds about 762,099 BTC, and its average purchase price is known to be about $75,699. That is below break-even based on the current price.

This is not the first clash between the two. Schiff has strongly criticised Strategy’s business model, and Saylor has described bitcoin as "digital gold" and stressed its value as a long-term investment asset. At the end of 2025, they also traded proposals for a public debate at Binance Blockchain Week in Dubai, but it did not happen.

In the market, some say the debate goes beyond a simple war of words and raises fundamental questions about asset valuation standards and investment horizons. The same asset can be seen as a failed investment or the best-performing asset depending on the reference point, and analysis says the importance of selecting the period in investment decisions is again coming into focus.

Over the past five years, the price of Bitcoin is up by just 12%. Over the same time period, the NASDAQ is up 57.4%, the S&P 500 is up 59.4%, gold is up 163%, and silver is up 181%. If the appeal of Bitcoin is its superior long-term performance, why should anyone keep HODLing it?