Schiff calls for Bitcoin’s death, and Bloomberg analysts see S&P reflecting the confusion

As Bitcoin drops and volatility spreads, Schiff sees the end. But is Bitcoin really failing as S&P reflects the behavior of BTC?

Bitcoin will die again

Peter Schiff has long been one of the most vocal critics of Bitcoin (BTC). For many years he has argued that assets have no intrinsic value and their prices are purely caused by speculation and collapse in the face of a true economic crisis.

On April 11, he reiterated this view on X, saying, “Bitcoin was born out of the 2008 financial crisis. Ironically, the 2025 financial crisis will kill it.” His statement directly links the origins of Bitcoin to a potential downfall.

It helps you revisit the terms that led to the creation of Bitcoin to evaluate its claims. The 2008 financial crisis marked the brink of the global financial system.

Some major banks either failed or needed emergency relief. The credit market was seized and investors’ trust evaporated.

In response, the central bank has cut interest rates to near zero and launched aggressive financial interventions that defined the next decade.

Bitcoin appeared in the midst of this confusion. The early 2009 release was rooted in a clear intention to propose an alternative financial framework. It eliminated central authorities, eliminated the possibility of relief, and introduced an immunotransparent supply mechanism for political interference.

So, if the crisis gives birth to Bitcoin, can another person eliminate it? Or did Bitcoin just endure as the financial system remains vulnerable? Let’s look into it.

What’s going on in 2025?

To assess whether Bitcoin can withstand future financial crisis, it is essential to first understand its current nature.

Unlike the collapse in 2008, which was caused by breakdowns within the banking system, the 2025 turmoil has been driven primarily by policy choices, particularly the imposition of cleaning fees.

On April 1, President Trump announced a wide range of tariff hikes affecting more than 75 countries. This ranges from 11% to 50%, depending on the product and origin.

China, the US’s biggest trading partner, was excluded from the general policy framework and instead faced severe trade restrictions.

The announcement has surprised global markets and has caused immediate volatility across stocks, commodities and currency markets. Over the next few days, the economic fallout deepened.

The US equity index lost more than $12 trillion in several trading sessions, but the bond market showed signs of tension, with Treasury yields temporarily rising above 4.5% in 2010.

As pressure increased, the White House revised its approach. On April 9th, it announced a 90-day suspension of most tariffs, despite restrictions placed on China.

The announcement helped to calm the market temporarily. Bitcoin (BTC), which fell to around $74,500 at the beginning of the month, rebounded to the $83,000-$85,000 range after the suspension. Analysts identified that level as a key area of ​​technical resistance.

The temporary pullback of tariffs has provided short-term relief, but it cannot revoke wider damage to investor sentiment and global trade momentum.

China’s response is coming and going. It introduced retaliatory tariffs from 34%, increasing them to 125% at the time of this writing, pushing the conflict into a full-fledged trade standoff.

Currently, more than 70 countries are in talks to renegotiate with the US, but uncertainty continues to grow heavily in the market.

Bitcoin of past crisis

Though still younger than traditional assets, Bitcoin has already overcome multiple crises, ranging from global market crashes to systematic bank failures. Each episode offers insight into how it responds under stress and why it goes against a simple classification.

The Covid-19 crash crash in March 2020 marked the first major test in the macroeconomic crisis. As the global market was unraveled, Bitcoin plunged more than 50%, falling from around $9,000 to under $4,500 within days.

But the rebound was just as sharp. Within two months, all losses were collected and by the end of the year it had been trading above $28,000.

The rally was driven by a mix of retail demand, increased institutional profits and reflection-driven transactions supported by a wave of central bank liquidity.

In 2022, pressure came from within the crypto ecosystem. Terra’s collapse and FTX bankruptcy caused a deep correction. Bitcoin fell below $16,000 by November from over $45,000 in early 2022.

These events were inherent in crypto, but unfolding against the backdrop of tightening global liquidity, the Federal Reserve aggressively raised interest rates to curb inflation.

Perhaps the most obvious moment came in the beginning of 2023, when US regional banks such as Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed within days of each other.

Bitcoin was rampant within two weeks, reaching sharply from around $20,000 to $28,000 due to questions about deposit security and central bank intervention. For many investors, it seemed temporary to provide evacuation from traditional banking risk.

These episodes reveal that Bitcoin’s actions are not fixed. It often trades like a risky asset during a period of widespread market stress, but also attracted capital in moments of institutional failure and financial uncertainty.

Rather than acting as a traditional hedge, Bitcoin is a role that functions as an alternative asset, shaped by the nature and origin of each crisis.

Recent market turbulence has blurred the lines even more. As Bloomberg’s Eric Barknath observed, “The S&P 500 is now as volatile as Bitcoin.”

The correlation between traditional assets and digital assets is no longer clear, and investors are increasingly treating them as part of the same risky universe.

This complexity is often overlooked in binary arguments. Schiff continues to align economic decline as an existential threat to Bitcoin. Others view assets as inherently resilient and gain strength when traditional systems show cracks.

So far, the truth has become even more subtle. Bitcoin is neither immune nor outdated, it is adaptable, and its association depends on the next break.