Peter Schiff Says Bitcoin Lost Its Edge After Wall Street Arrived — Is He Right?
Veteran gold advocate and long-time Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff reignited debate around institutional influence on the crypto market this week, arguing that the asset’s strongest era ended the moment Wall Street joined the party.
In a post on X, Schiff wrote, “Bitcoin was the best performing asset during a time period when hardly anyone owned it. But ever since Wall Street embraced it and most people bought it, it’s been one of the worst performing assets.”
The remark comes amid a wave of large-scale institutional activity that has reshaped the crypto market over the past two years, from record-breaking ETF inflows to the arrival of major banks and traditional exchanges building crypto-native infrastructure.
Schiff’s criticism puts the focus on a long-running tension between Bitcoin’s early ethos of outsider finance and the modern reality of institutional dominance.
Wall Street’s Deepening Push Into Bitcoin
Contrary to Schiff’s characterization, institutional engagement with Bitcoin has intensified since 2024, accelerating again in early 2026.
Fidelity Digital Assets recently described Wall Street’s integration as the force “powering crypto’s next phase,” citing growing demand for regulated exposure as a structural shift similar to earlier breakthroughs in global markets.
At the same time, Morgan Stanley has filed to launch Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana ETFs — a major turning point for a top U.S. bank that was previously cautious toward the sector. The move aligns the firm with BlackRock and Fidelity, whose spot Bitcoin ETFs have already helped push the broader U.S. ETF market above $120 billion in assets.
For some analysts, those developments represent a milestone on the road to BTC’s mainstream acceptance. For Schiff, however, they exemplify the moment the asset stopped behaving like the outsider investment that delivered exponential returns in the 2011–2021 era.
A Shift From Retail Euphoria to Institutional Structure
The narrative playing out is not simply one of deteriorating returns but of transforming market dynamics. Throughout the 2010s and early 2020s, Bitcoin’s rallies were driven overwhelmingly by retail speculation, viral narratives, and relatively small pools of liquidity. Prices could move dramatically on sentiment alone.
That picture has changed. Wall Street’s entry has brought:
• Regulated ETF demand that now dwarfs early-stage retail flows
• Options and derivatives activity increasingly shaped by professional trading desks
• Institutional custody, settlement, and 24/7 trading infrastructure
Wall Street has effectively taken over Bitcoin options markets, shifting liquidity from retail-led volatility to deeper, more complex institutional positioning. The New York Stock Exchange’s plan to launch a 24/7 blockchain securities platform — potentially settling trades in stablecoins — shows just how far the convergence has already gone.
JPMorgan, previously a vocal critic of crypto markets, is also preparing to offer institutional spot and derivatives trading to large clients, marking another pivot point in traditional finance’s evolving view of Bitcoin.
Is Bitcoin Underperforming — Or Simply Maturing?
Schiff’s argument relies on a familiar premise: Bitcoin thrived when it was new, misunderstood, and owned by few. By contrast, assets with broad ownership and institutional validation tend to deliver steadier, less explosive returns.
But many analysts counter that Bitcoin’s performance must be viewed through the lens of market maturity rather than decline. The asset’s price recently touched $90,000 before retreating, and remains up significantly over multi-year timeframes despite rising caution from some strategists about chasing rallies.
BTC price performance over the past year (Source: CoinGecko)
Institutional flows have also added resilience. The presence of ETF arbitrage, deeper derivatives markets, and global liquidity has dampened the extreme volatility that once produced both massive gains and massive crashes.
Rather than becoming a “worst performing asset,” as Schiff suggests, Bitcoin may be transitioning into a category he has long argued it could never reach — a mainstream, institutionally held asset with long-term strategic adoption.
A Debate Far From Over
Schiff’s latest criticism underscores a broader philosophical divide: Was Bitcoin meant to be a high-velocity speculative vehicle, or a maturing macro asset developing alongside traditional finance?
With Wall Street continuing to file ETFs, expand trading platforms, and build tokenization infrastructure, Bitcoin’s next chapter is unlikely to resemble its first. Whether that validates Schiff’s warning or proves his skepticism misplaced will depend on whether institutional demand ultimately accelerates or suppresses Bitcoin’s long-term upside.
