Bitcoiners are seething at Peter Zeihan’s interview on Joe Rogan podcast

American geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan has never been popular among Bitcoin enthusiasts. Zeihan has spoken out against Bitcoin (BTC) on several occasions in the past, even calling it a “trash can fire.”

about 2 hours long podcast Hosted by Joe Rogan on Jan. 8, Zeihan reiterated his take on the cryptocurrency with the largest market cap. In less than two minutes of his time Zeihan spent discussing Bitcoin, he said his BTC had no “intrinsic value.” This is a popular narrative presented by many Bitcoin and cryptocurrency critics, including the Central Bank of India.

Zeihan went on to say that the BTC price drop was just an asset that “started to be properly priced.” He added a more bleak prediction that the price of Bitcoin is set to be negative.

“$16,000 for Bitcoin? There’s another $17,000 reduction.”

Zeihan said bitcoin has become an ideology and people make decisions “a little off the math” when investing based on ideology.

This is because Bitcoin proponents claim that BTC is “the currency of the future and the way forward for distributed ledgers.” BTC proponents argue that government-controlled currencies are inherently “negative,” he added.

But “that’s not how currency works,” said Zeihan. He went on to define currency as a store of value and a method of exchange that requires “trust.” Therefore, he explained, a centralized body is needed to control such amounts of currency.

Since the BTC supply is limited to 21 million coins, Zeihan argued, “By default, it means that it cannot be used for trading.”

“The whole idea of ​​economic activity is that there is expansion,” he argued. This means that more and more currencies will be needed to “smooth and manage its expansion,” he argued, adding:

“When a currency is pegged to a certain number, you have monetary inflation. It’s one of the fastest ways to destroy an economic model.”

Zeihan then contradicted his earlier prediction that the BTC price would go negative. When Rogan asked for clarification that “the only thing that can happen is that Bitcoin becomes more expensive” due to the limited supply of BTC, Zeihan replied “Yes!” rice field.

And while people hold BTC for a long period of time, the model of “everyone else suffering” is “not viable,” argued Zeihan.

Another method, Zeihan said, is when individuals generate money on a whim, which is no different from the current centralized model, except for the lack of accountability.

Twitter erupts against Zeihan

Alex Stanczyk, managing director of BTC accumulation platform Swan Bitcoin, has criticized Zeihan for his “ignorance.”he I have written:

“I don’t know if it’s humanly possible for a person to cram more ignorance into one minute and fifty-five seconds. Most of what this “expert” said in this short period of time is complete nonsense. ”

Jeff Ross, who runs hedge fund Veilshire Capital, called Zeihan’s claims “seriously wrong.”he I got it Zeihan’s logic that money needs centralization to be effective, that money scarcity limits human productivity and economic expansion, and that BTC and cryptocurrencies are interchangeable is all false. increase.

Joe Burnett, head analyst at BTC mining solutions firm Blockware, noticed Zeihan’s contradiction when geopolitical analysts agreed that BTC would only get more expensive. says.

“Peter happens to be one of the biggest Bitcoin bulls!“

Bitcoin maximalist Jesse Myers also wrote an article refuting most of Zeihan’s claims. articleMyers explained that when Zeihan said “financial inflation,” “his terminology is reversed.”

An inflationary currency is a currency, like the US dollar, in which buyers have to spend more units to buy fewer goods over time. Bitcoin is a “deflationary currency,” and as its value increases, people will be able to buy more goods with fewer units, he added.

Myers wrote:

“Not only is Bitcoin really good at the primary function of currency (a good savings vehicle), but it doesn’t matter for transactional purposes that Bitcoin becomes more expensive over time…. There is no such thing as “too expensive to use”, as Zeihan suggests.

Myers pointed out that gold was a deflationary asset in use in the United States before the establishment of the Federal Bank in 1913. She Myers argued that this drove innovation and excellence.

By contrast, the poor and middle class have been losing their wealth since the US dollar was adopted, writes Myers. It proves that it is better than