Did Peter Schiff and his team even do basic research about Kim Kardashian’s case? Or is he playing dumb, attacking his perceived enemies, and muddying the waters? For Peter Schiff’s sake let’s hope it’s the second option, because what he wrote was downright embarrassing.
Peter Schiff’s exact words were: “The SEC is fining Kim Kardashian $1.2 million for pumping crypto. What about the real pumpers? Saylor had much more to gain pumping crypto than Kim. Or CNBC paid millions for ads by crypto companies, then pumping Bitcoin non-stop while providing industry pumpers with airtime?” Wow. When newcomers to the space mix bitcoin and crypto, it’s often an honest mistake. Peter Schiff, however, writes about bitcoin every day of his life. Could he be this out of the loop? Or does he have a hidden agenda?
What Is Peter Schiff Even Talking About?
First of all, Kim Kardashian did settle with the SEC for $1.2 million. The accusation was specifically about an alleged scam called EthereumMax. Apparently, she didn’t disclose the payment she got for the promotion. According to our coverage, Kim K “agreed to pay $1.26 million in penalties, including her promotional payment for EthereumMax. In addition, the socialite agreed to stop promoting “crypto securities” for the coming three years and to cooperate with the SEC’s ongoing investigation.”
That’s the case in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with bitcoin or Saylor. And you can be sure that CNBC discloses all of the payments they get for crypto ads. So, what is Peter Schiff even talking about?
Michael Saylor Fires Back
The MicroStrategy mastermind replied with a basic lesson: “Bitcoin is a commodity, not a security. Advocating a commodity is similar to promoting steel, aluminum, concrete, glass, or granite. The BTC network is an open protocol, offering utilitarian benefits similar to roads, rails, radio, telephone, television, internet, or english.” This should be common knowledge, but it isn’t. A self-proclaimed expert like Peter Schiff should know all about it, though. It’s literally his job.
Notice that Saylor didn’t mention gold, Peter Schiff’s bread and butter. When a Twitter user pressed him on the similarities between him shilling gold and Saylor bitcoin, Schiff responded: “My recommending gold is not the same as bitcoin owners looking to sell pumping bitcoin. I don’t sell any gold that I own. I sell retail, then buy wholesale on behalf of customers. Also my advocacy of gold has no effect on its price.” Is he implying that Saylor sells his bitcoin and moves the market with his tweets? Because those are two lies.
The fact of the matter is that bitcoin is a commodity and not a security. That’s not an opinion. That’s the SEC’s official stance on the matter.
Plus, Saylor was not paid by a third party. Bitcoin is actually decentralized and doesn’t have a marketing budget, much less an owner.
Bitcoin is not crypto. And Peter Schiff should know that.
The name recognition that bitcoin brought to MicroStrategy can’t be bought. They “can’t really ignore us,” Saylor said. Bitcoin has been a “benefit on marketing and sales” and a “net positive” for the company. In fact, he qualifies it as “a screaming homerun for the shareholders.”