Double standards in the market: how silver and Bitcoin are receiving different valuations after the crash

When the same market mechanics lead to completely opposite conclusions about two assets, the question of analysis fairness arises. Such a scenario unfolded in the market after the recent silver crash, when expert Shanaka Perera identified a clear inconsistency in the judgments of influential Bitcoin critic — Peter Schiff.

When Margin Attacks: Anatomy of the Silver Collapse

The event that sparked the discussion was striking in its speed. In less than an hour, silver lost 14% of its value — from $84 to $72. The reason? An increase in margin requirements at CME, which triggered a cascade of forced liquidations. Billions of dollars in fish positions were wiped out by technical leverage trading logic, not by a fundamental revaluation of the metal itself.

Schiff’s reaction was immediate and optimistic. He viewed the 14-percent correction as an opportunity, insisting that silver securities had become more attractive because the price fell due to technical factors, not fundamental problems with the asset.

Bitcoin — and suddenly a different story

But when Bitcoin retreated 30% from recent highs, triggered by the same financial mechanisms — leverage, margin requirements, forced liquidations — Schiff offered a completely different narrative. It was not an opportunity, he argued, but proof that cryptocurrency was always a “scam” and inevitably “worthless to zero.”

This is where Perera identified a logical gap. How can the same mechanism — a margin liquidation — be a buying signal for one asset and a death sentence for another? This question points to a deeper issue of consistency in market analysis.

The history of criticism as proof of bias

To support his position, Perera referred to Schiff’s archive of Bitcoin forecasts. The list was long and repetitive: “scam” at $5, “tulip mania” at $1,000, “too expensive” at $3,800, and again “scam” at $90,000. Regardless of whether the market was rising or falling, the label remained unchanged.

This pattern is hard to ignore. If an asset is always described the same way, regardless of conditions, it may indicate not objective analysis, but a fixed stance that seeks justification in every situation.

Commercial logic disguised as criticism

The most pointed part of Perera’s analysis touched on incentives. SchiffGold — a company associated with Schiff — accepts Bitcoin as payment. Schiff’s son owns Bitcoin himself. Schiff regularly appears at cryptocurrency conferences. But his most active and discussed activity is precisely anti-cryptocurrency rhetoric, not gold discussions.

The paradox is simple: sharp criticism of Bitcoin generates far more audience engagement and discussion than any stance on gold. And more discussion means more visibility, more influence, more platforms to promote related brands and services. Perera’s direct statement on this was: “Bitcoin — this is your marketing strategy.”

The crypto community dissects the mechanism

The broader cryptocurrency community echoed Perera’s view. Users noted that criticism of Bitcoin only increases its visibility and attracts a more engaged audience. One notable comment explained the logic as follows: Bitcoin serves not as Schiff’s goal, but as a driver of his influence. Constant opposition guarantees a stream of reactions from the crypto community, while his standard gold analysis alone does not generate such engagement.

This observation points to a very human aspect of markets: analysis is often intertwined with commercial interests, and less objective truths and unbalanced positions sometimes bring more benefit than a calm consensus.

Not about value, but about standards

It’s important to note that Perera’s argument was not to prove that Bitcoin is some kind of excellent asset, and silver is not. On the contrary, the argument was about a procedural issue. If the same market behavior — technical liquidation via leverage — is considered an opportunity for one asset, why is it evidence of collapse for another?

This is a fundamental question of applying consistent evaluation criteria. If you believe that technical collapses create opportunities, this principle should apply to all assets. If you believe they indicate inherent complexity, that should be a universal judgment as well.

What’s next in the Bitcoin-silver debate

Debates will likely continue as both assets remain volatile, and regular market corrections keep testing whether analysts apply the same rules to different asset classes. It’s not just about which asset to trust, but whether we can maintain consistent logic in market analysis. An article highlighting such gaps in analysis levels should be seen as a valuable contribution to the debate, revealing where objective critique ends and where commercial manipulation begins. That’s why discussions about “scam” articles in analyst conclusions remain relevant — until investors learn to distinguish between consistent logic and fixed positions.