Economist Peter Schiff recently asked why central banks and bitcoin remain distant, despite the soaring value of cryptocurrencies. In the Bank of Russia’s April 2025 report titled “Financial Market Risk Overview,” Bitcoin was recognized as the highest-yielding asset, increasing by 38% over the last 12 months. Yet, the Bank of Russia and many other central banks show little appetite for buying Bitcoin.
In 2025, both the Swiss National Bank and the European Central Bank rejected proposals to invest in digital assets. This move triggered Schiff to criticize the cautious stance of central banks towards cryptocurrencies. He questioned why, if gold is becoming outdated and Bitcoin represents the future, foreign central banks preparing for a post-dollar world still replace dollars with gold — not Bitcoin.
Peter Schiff’s Question: Why Not Bitcoin?
Schiff’s query touches on a critical debate about the future role of Bitcoin in global finance. With increasing skepticism towards the dominance of the US dollar as a reserve currency, many expect a shift towards alternative assets. Gold has traditionally filled that role, but Bitcoin’s rapid price growth and limited supply have made it an attractive candidate for diversification.
Yet, central banks remain hesitant. Schiff argues that Bitcoin should replace gold as the main reserve asset for these institutions, especially those preparing for a future without reliance on the American dollar. However, the reluctance remains palpable.
The Reason Central Banks Avoid Bitcoin
A smart answer to Schiff’s question came from a macro strategist known as EndGame Macro. According to him, central banks are not tasked with promoting innovation. Instead, their primary responsibility lies in managing systemic financial risks.
When it comes to capital risk, Bitcoin far exceeds that of precious metals with centuries of trading history. Therefore, regulators prefer gold over cryptocurrencies as a safer asset. Central banks prioritize reliability over returns. They do not accumulate assets that might experience explosive growth but instead hold those capable of surviving financial collapses.
Bitcoin’s Risk Compared to Gold
The difference in risk profiles between Bitcoin and gold is key to understanding central banks’ preferences. Gold has been a stable store of value for thousands of years and benefits from established markets and regulatory frameworks. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is still relatively new and volatile, which makes it a risky choice for conservative institutional investors.
EndGame Macro emphasized that central banks need stability above all else. Their portfolios aim to mitigate risks, not maximize gains. Until Bitcoin can prove long-term stability, central banks will likely continue to favor gold as their reserve asset.
What the Future Holds for Central Banks and Bitcoin
Despite the current reluctance, some commentators predict that central banks will eventually take interest in Bitcoin. They may start exchanging part of their traditional “shiny metals” reserves for the first least risky digital assets.
The evolution of the global monetary system, especially with growing calls to reduce dependence on the US dollar, may push central banks closer to cryptocurrencies. Yet, for now, the divide between central banks and bitcoin remains significant, driven by risk management priorities and institutional conservatism.
