Peter Schiff argued Tuesday that the Donald Trump family’s billions in crypto gains came directly at the expense of retail investors, not from any actual value created by the ventures themselves. The criticism follows Trump's recent suggestion that Bitcoin could be included in the Trump Accounts, a new investment initiative for children, where he stated he has become a supporter of the cryptocurrency industry to prevent China from dominating the sector.

Schiff laid out three categories of buyers in a post on X. Some purchased Trump-related crypto knowing they would lose money, treating the purchase as a political donation in disguise. Others bought small amounts purely to show support with no expectation of profit. The majority, Schiff argued, were ordinary Trump supporters who genuinely believed they were making legitimate investments and expected to make money.

"Their gains did not result from actual value creation, but from the losses suffered by investors who bought the overpriced crypto and shares they sold," Schiff wrote. He added that the Trump Organization faces a wave of lawsuits from investors seeking to recover losses, and that Democrats will exploit the most extreme cases in political advertising Republicans will struggle to defend.

A Reuters investigation estimated the Trump family generated roughly $2.3 billion from four crypto ventures, including World Liberty Financial, the TRUMP meme coin, American Bitcoin, and AI Financial. Outside investors meanwhile suffered approximately $2.3 billion in realized and paper losses through the end of April. Trump’s 2025 government financial disclosure showed more than $1.4 billion in crypto-related income, including nearly $800 million from World Liberty Financial and $635 million from Trump-branded meme coins.

Earlier this week, Trump told reporters at the White House that "something could happen" around including Bitcoin in Trump Accounts after being asked by a reporter spotting Anthony Pompliano in the Oval Office. Trump said he became a crypto supporter because if the US doesn’t have it, China will. Schiff responded directly, alleging Trump’s crypto donors likely called in a favor to get him to float the idea. "Trump’s already made a killing off crypto, but hopefully he won’t rip off Trump accounts too," Schiff said.

A separate Nansen investigation found that nearly one million investors who bought the TRUMP meme coin collectively lost $3.81 billion, even as Trump earned more than $635 million from the same token in royalties alone. A separate Forbes calculation estimated Trump gained about $3 billion from media and crypto ventures while investors collectively lost roughly $7 billion across Trump Media, World Liberty tokens, the TRUMP and MELANIA meme coins, and American Bitcoin.

Bitcoin advocates at the BTC Prague conference on July 6 argued that the cryptocurrency's role in geopolitics is expanding due to its neutral technology and permissionless nature. Panelists emphasized that self-custody remains the strongest use case, distinguishing direct ownership from institutional products like ETFs. They noted Bitcoin's increasing relevance as the global financial order shifts from unipolar to multipolar.

Bitcoin Is Neutral Technology

Natalie Brunell, an author, stated at the conference that Bitcoin is a neutral technology available to sovereign nations and individuals alike due to its permissionless nature. Panelists discussed reports of Bitcoin use by countries such as Iran and Venezuela, arguing that such activity reflects Bitcoin’s core design rather than a reputational flaw.

Tony Yazbeck, co-founder of The Bitcoin Way, highlighted that Bitcoin changes the rules of global money by removing the ability to police transactions. "Bitcoin was created for one purpose and one purpose only, the separation of money and state," Yazbeck added.

Rahim Taghizadegan, founder of the Scholarium, noted Bitcoin has survived previous reputational risks, including Silk Road, speculative crypto markets, and usage by rogue states. He added that Bitcoin is increasingly relevant as the world shifts from a unipolar financial order toward a multipolar one.

Institutional BTC Products Are Not Bitcoin

The panelists drew a sharp distinction between owning Bitcoin directly and gaining exposure through institutional products such as spot ETFs or Bitcoin treasury companies. Brunell said institutional adoption was inevitable and can serve as an on-ramp for pension funds and traditional investors but added that it is not the same as holding Bitcoin directly.

Yazbeck was more critical, arguing that institutional BTC products are "not Bitcoin" because investors do not control the asset. "All of these products and services are created to keep 8.3 billion people dependent on a system," he said. "The only product that’s out there as a ticket for freedom is Bitcoin in your control."

The speakers argued that Bitcoin’s strongest use case remains self-custody, especially for individuals facing inflation, capital controls, or political instability. Yazbeck, who said he lost access to funds during Lebanon’s banking crisis, warned that people should not wait for extreme financial pain before learning about Bitcoin. "Bitcoin is money that has been an option since 2009," he concluded.