Warren Buffett’s apparent shift on gold has reopened an old question in crypto circles: if the Berkshire Hathaway chairman can change his mind on one hard-asset-related investment, could bitcoin eventually be next? The speculation accelerated after Berkshire disclosed major portfolio changes, including cuts to bank stocks and a new position in a leading gold miner. For bitcoin advocates, the development was enough to revive a long-running debate about whether one of the world’s most famous value investors could someday reconsider digital assets.
Berkshire Cuts Banks and Adds a Gold Miner
Buffett has spent years criticizing gold as an investment, often contrasting it with productive assets such as strong operating businesses. That made Berkshire Hathaway’s latest filing especially notable. The company exited its position in Goldman Sachs, reduced its stake in JPMorgan Chase by 61%, and also sold holdings in Wells Fargo and PNC. At the same time, Berkshire initiated a position in Barrick Gold, one of the best-known gold mining companies in the world.
The move came after gold prices had surged to more than $2,000 per ounce, a milestone that reinforced the metal’s appeal as an inflation hedge and defensive asset. Berkshire’s purchase also had an immediate market effect, helping lift shares of Barrick and other mining companies. While buying a miner is not the same as buying physical gold, many market participants still saw the decision as a meaningful departure from Buffett’s long-established skepticism toward the sector.
That nuance matters. Buffett did not buy bullion; Berkshire bought equity in a mining company. Even so, the symbolism was powerful. For investors who had followed his comments on gold for decades, the transaction suggested at minimum a more pragmatic view of how to position capital in an uncertain macro environment.
Why Crypto Traders Think the Gold Move Matters
For the crypto market, the significance of Berkshire’s portfolio adjustment goes beyond gold itself. Bitcoin supporters have long argued that BTC shares some of the same macro drivers that push investors toward precious metals: monetary expansion, inflation concerns, and demand for assets outside the traditional banking system. So when Buffett’s company reduced exposure to banks and added a gold-related position, many in the crypto community immediately framed the development as indirectly constructive for bitcoin.
Jason Williams, co-founder of Morgan Creek Digital, captured that view in a short but widely shared social media reaction, arguing that Buffett sold banks, bought gold, and would buy bitcoin next. That statement was not based on any new filing or direct evidence of Berkshire accumulating BTC. Rather, it reflected a broader belief inside crypto that macro pressure is gradually forcing even the most traditional investors to adapt.
At the same time, skepticism remained strong. Social media responses included the familiar arguments against any future Buffett bitcoin allocation: that he does not understand the technology, that he is too committed to his long-held views, or that his investing philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with a volatile digital asset. A few users went further, speculating—without evidence—that he might already have indirect exposure. But the dominant reality remains unchanged: there is no indication in the source material that Buffett owns bitcoin or plans to buy it.
Buffett’s History of Rejecting Bitcoin
Bitcoin has been one of Buffett’s most consistent targets among alternative assets. In 2018, he famously described the cryptocurrency as “rat poison squared”, a phrase that became one of the most frequently cited anti-bitcoin remarks from a major investor. His critique aligned with a broader skepticism from traditional finance figures who questioned whether digital currencies had intrinsic value, durable utility, or a defensible investment thesis.
Earlier in the year, Buffett met Tron founder Justin Sun and several crypto executives over lunch, a high-profile event that briefly fueled speculation about a thaw in his views. Sun also gave Buffett his first bitcoin, stored on a Samsung Galaxy Fold phone. But the symbolic gesture did not translate into a strategic shift. Buffett later donated the bitcoin to charity and reiterated that he would never own the asset.
That history is why Berkshire’s move into a gold miner drew so much attention. Buffett has now shown that positions he once criticized can, under the right circumstances, find a place in a portfolio managed by his company. Whether that flexibility could ever extend to bitcoin is the question driving the current round of commentary.
Max Keiser’s $50,000 Forecast
The boldest take came from prominent bitcoin advocate and television personality Max Keiser. Interpreting Buffett’s gold-related move as broadly positive for bitcoin, Keiser predicted that the Berkshire chief would eventually begin panic-buying bitcoin at $50,000. He suggested that the same price level could also be the tipping point for other well-known skeptics, including Peter Schiff and veteran investor Jim Rogers.
Keiser’s statement was clearly speculative, but it resonated because it framed bitcoin adoption as a process of delayed capitulation among critics. In that view, investors who dismiss BTC in its early stages may end up chasing it at much higher prices once the asset becomes too large or too resilient to ignore. The phrase “panic-buy” was central to the message: not just buying, but buying reluctantly and late.
There is, however, a substantial gap between rhetorical predictions and portfolio reality. The source material offers no evidence that Buffett has softened his direct criticism of bitcoin, nor does it indicate that Berkshire is studying a crypto allocation. Keiser’s comment should therefore be understood as opinion from a bitcoin proponent rather than a report of insider knowledge or an imminent strategic shift.
Gold Advocates Also Claimed Validation
The news was not interpreted as a bitcoin signal by everyone. Gold advocate Peter Schiff welcomed Buffett’s purchase of a gold stock, saying it showed that Buffett understood inflation acts like a tax. Schiff argued that investors who do not want to pay that tax should buy gold or gold equities, echoing his long-standing view that precious metals remain the superior hedge.
That response highlighted a familiar divide between the gold and bitcoin camps. Both often speak to concerns about fiat debasement and inflation, but they propose very different solutions. Gold supporters see Buffett’s move as validation of traditional hard-asset investing. Bitcoin supporters see it as a possible first step toward accepting a newer form of scarce, non-sovereign money.
What Can Actually Be Concluded
The hard facts are straightforward. Berkshire Hathaway reduced bank exposure, exited Goldman Sachs, cut JPMorgan by 61%, sold other financial holdings, and bought a stake in Barrick Gold. Gold had recently traded above $2,000 an ounce. Buffett has previously attacked bitcoin, received a gifted BTC, donated it, and said he would never own the cryptocurrency. Everything beyond that—especially the idea that he could buy bitcoin at $50,000—remains commentary and speculation.
Still, the market relevance of the story is easy to understand. Buffett is not just another investor; he is a symbol of disciplined, long-term capital allocation. When someone with that stature appears to revise his approach to an asset class he once dismissed, investors naturally wonder what other old assumptions could eventually change. For crypto markets, that is enough to keep the discussion alive, even in the absence of concrete evidence.
For now, Buffett’s gold pivot has not become a bitcoin pivot. But it has given crypto bulls a fresh narrative: if gold was once dismissed and later accepted in some form, perhaps bitcoin cannot be ruled out forever. Whether that narrative proves prescient or premature remains one of the more intriguing crossovers between traditional finance and digital assets.