The post Peter Brandt Throws Jab at Biggest Bitcoin (BTC) Critic as Gold Plunges Deeply appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Veteran crypto trader Peter Brandt has taken to X (formerly Twitter) to provide a brief analysis of gold’s long-term performance while highlighting the many long and painful waiting periods that pro-gold advocate and Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has had to endure over the years. The post, issued on Wednesday, October 22, saw Brandt take a playful jab at Schiff as gold suddenly flipped negative over the last day, facing a sharp correction from its recent record highs. Another waiting period? Following Brandt’s criticism of the sudden gold dump, he shared a historical gold chart suggesting that the asset has put its investors through a tough investment journey filled with long seclusion periods. The data shows that gold has continued to record deep and long-lasting consolidations, even though it has averaged a 3.6% annual return over the past 45 years. This trend is particularly evident in gold’s price trajectory during the 1980s. The chart reveals that it took gold 28 long years to retest the high it achieved after a massive spike in March 1980. A few years later, gold investors faced yet another long and painful seclusion period after the asset recorded a new high in September 2011. After hitting this peak, gold experienced a prolonged crash, taking about 13 years to break even again, forcing investors to wait that long before reclaiming profits. GoldAverage annual ROR = <4%In Mar 1980 Gold made a high. @PeterSchiff had to then wait 28 years to be bailed outIn Sep 2011 Gold made a high. This time PS needed less than 13 years to pound his chest again How many years will PS now go into seclusion? Care to guess? Yet, a… pic.twitter.com/b7hoWuz5cX — Peter Brandt (@PeterLBrandt) October 22, 2025 It now appears that gold may be replaying these unfavorable trends, as it… The post Peter Brandt Throws Jab at Biggest Bitcoin (BTC) Critic as Gold Plunges Deeply appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Veteran crypto trader Peter Brandt has taken to X (formerly Twitter) to provide a brief analysis of gold’s long-term performance while highlighting the many long and painful waiting periods that pro-gold advocate and Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has had to endure over the years. The post, issued on Wednesday, October 22, saw Brandt take a playful jab at Schiff as gold suddenly flipped negative over the last day, facing a sharp correction from its recent record highs. Another waiting period? Following Brandt’s criticism of the sudden gold dump, he shared a historical gold chart suggesting that the asset has put its investors through a tough investment journey filled with long seclusion periods. The data shows that gold has continued to record deep and long-lasting consolidations, even though it has averaged a 3.6% annual return over the past 45 years. This trend is particularly evident in gold’s price trajectory during the 1980s. The chart reveals that it took gold 28 long years to retest the high it achieved after a massive spike in March 1980. A few years later, gold investors faced yet another long and painful seclusion period after the asset recorded a new high in September 2011. After hitting this peak, gold experienced a prolonged crash, taking about 13 years to break even again, forcing investors to wait that long before reclaiming profits. GoldAverage annual ROR = <4%In Mar 1980 Gold made a high. @PeterSchiff had to then wait 28 years to be bailed outIn Sep 2011 Gold made a high. This time PS needed less than 13 years to pound his chest again How many years will PS now go into seclusion? Care to guess? Yet, a… pic.twitter.com/b7hoWuz5cX — Peter Brandt (@PeterLBrandt) October 22, 2025 It now appears that gold may be replaying these unfavorable trends, as it…

Peter Brandt Throws Jab at Biggest Bitcoin (BTC) Critic as Gold Plunges Deeply

2025/10/23 20:29

Veteran crypto trader Peter Brandt has taken to X (formerly Twitter) to provide a brief analysis of gold’s long-term performance while highlighting the many long and painful waiting periods that pro-gold advocate and Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has had to endure over the years.

The post, issued on Wednesday, October 22, saw Brandt take a playful jab at Schiff as gold suddenly flipped negative over the last day, facing a sharp correction from its recent record highs.

Another waiting period?

Following Brandt’s criticism of the sudden gold dump, he shared a historical gold chart suggesting that the asset has put its investors through a tough investment journey filled with long seclusion periods.

The data shows that gold has continued to record deep and long-lasting consolidations, even though it has averaged a 3.6% annual return over the past 45 years.

This trend is particularly evident in gold’s price trajectory during the 1980s. The chart reveals that it took gold 28 long years to retest the high it achieved after a massive spike in March 1980.

A few years later, gold investors faced yet another long and painful seclusion period after the asset recorded a new high in September 2011.

After hitting this peak, gold experienced a prolonged crash, taking about 13 years to break even again, forcing investors to wait that long before reclaiming profits.

It now appears that gold may be replaying these unfavorable trends, as it has begun plunging deep into the red zone shortly after surpassing $4,000. Brandt highlighted this in his post, trolling Schiff for his endurance over the years and raising a mocking question about how many years Schiff will now go into “seclusion.”

Commentators largely agreed with Brandt’s take, emphasizing that his analysis demonstrates how even traditionally “safe haven” assets like gold can take decades to recover or break even.

As such, many commentators consider Bitcoin a better long-term investment option—despite the heavy criticism it often receives during its correction periods.

Source: https://u.today/peter-brandt-throws-jab-at-biggest-bitcoin-btc-critic-as-gold-plunges-deeply

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00