When Schiff Says Bitcoin Is “Dead,” But S&P Acts Like It: Who’s the Real Victim of the Crisis?
Bitcoin is “dead” again—at least in Peter Schiff’s eyes.
On April 11, the longtime Bitcoin critic took to his X (formerly Twitter) platform once again, writing:
Bitcoin was born out of the 2008 financial crisis. Ironically, the 2025 financial crisis will kill it.
The statement is not only a rejection of Bitcoin’s intrinsic value—something Schiff has been saying for more than a decade—but also a verdict on the demise of a symbol of resistance to the traditional monetary system. But what’s more telling is this: While Schiff is predicting Bitcoin’s death, the US stock market—represented by the S&P 500—is behaving like the digital asset.
Bitcoin was born out of a crisis – and can survive on it
Bitcoin’s birth in 2009 was no coincidence. It was the result of a reaction – a quiet revolution – to the instability of the global financial system after 2008. As banks collapsed, interest rates were slashed to near zero, and governments launched a series of emergency bailouts, faith in the old system was shaken. Bitcoin was born as an alternative: no central control, no indiscriminate money printing, no political interference.
So the question is: if one crisis created Bitcoin, can another one destroy it? Or, conversely, are financial shocks the reason Bitcoin continues to exist?
2025: A crisis of policy, not banking
Unlike the banking shock of 2008, the current economic turmoil has a clear political imprint. When the Trump administration announced a massive tariff hike in early April 2025, with tariffs of up to 50% on goods from more than 75 countries, the reaction spread across financial markets.
In just a few days, the S&P 500 lost more than $12 trillion in market capitalization. US Treasury bonds were so stressed that the 10-year yield topped 4.5%. Meanwhile, China – the hardest hit country – retaliated with retaliatory tariffs of up to 125%.
Even when the US administration announced a 90-day tariff suspension (excluding China), the damage was done: market sentiment plummeted, global trade slowed. Bitcoin – which had fallen to nearly $74,500 – rebounded to the $83,000-$85,000 range shortly after the announcement. For many analysts, that was a key technical resistance zone.
Bitcoin and Past Crises: Hurt but Not Broken
Bitcoin has never been immune to crises. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused BTC to lose more than 50% of its value in just a few days. But then it recovered strongly – from under $5,000 to over $28,000 in less than a year. That rebound was tied to massive liquidity injections from central banks and the entry of institutional investors.
Then in 2022, internal events like the collapse of Terra or the FTX deal caused BTC to fall below $16,000. But despite the “punch” from both outside and inside the ecosystem, Bitcoin still stands firm.
Another pivotal moment was early 2023, when a series of regional banks in the US went bankrupt, investors panicked and withdrew their deposits. Bitcoin is once again a “safe haven,” surging from $20,000 to over $28,000 in two weeks.
When the S&P Acts Like Bitcoin: The Lines Are Blurring
The most notable thing about the current crisis isn’t that Bitcoin is falling – it’s that the S&P 500, a proxy for traditional assets, is behaving… like Bitcoin. Eric Balchunas, an ETF analyst at Bloomberg, commented:
“The S&P 500 is now as volatile as Bitcoin.”
The correlation between traditional financial markets and digital assets has never been higher. In the eyes of many investors, both are part of the same risk universe – where volatility is no longer a rarity, but the new default.
The Bottom Line: Bitcoin Isn’t Invincible – But It’s Not Easy to Kill
Schiff may be right about one thing: Bitcoin isn’t immune to crises. But he is wrong to assume that each crisis is its own end.
Bitcoin is not the ultimate “digital gold,” nor is it a purely speculative instrument. It is an alternative asset—a market response to the breakdown of trust in legacy systems. And its role—increasing or decreasing—will continue to change with the nature of each subsequent crisis.
