Peter Schiff is a genius and has proven arguments, technical arguments, understands how the economy works.
I wouldn't call him a genius, I understand how the economy works and I'm an idiot. If we take his major themes he makes some valid arguments but also fallacious ones:
1. He understands just as countless millions understand that an economy grows when productivity increases. There's nothing remarkably special about that understanding.
2. He understands that savings are important for everyone as a means to meet expenses and as collateral for loans. However he makes the false assumption that it is savings that funds the capital goods used to provide the goods and services for consumption. This may have been true in the past under when we used commodity currencies and when business entrepreneurs borrowed the savings of others to invest, however the modern system functions differently. Savings are not lent anymore, loans are brought into existence out of thin air and then funded afterwards. This is not an entirely bad thing mind you as even in this modern currency system there is currently not enough collateral in the real economy to fund productivity growth and consumption, especially given the massive increase in the world's population over the past century (population growth is not the problem though), returning to a commodity currency or a system where savings are used to fund productivity expansion and consumption would see living standards drastically decline.
3. He understands comparative advantage. This is good as populists don't and it's not something that every day people get even though Adam Smith was banging on about it nearly 300 years ago.
4. He understands that governments have a role in providing services in the community that the private sector would not provide because there is no profit to be made. However he argues that governments fund this expenditure through taxes ie the government uses savings in the same way the real economy uses its savings as collateral for credit and for consumption. This is false as modern governments are not revenue constrained. Yes the inflationary nature of the modern monetary system, the politicisation of government expenditure and the actions of central bankers create cycles of boom and bust, but again, returning to a commodity currency would not solve our problems and would lead to austerity. Solutions to the problem would include such policy measures as abolishing the bond market, discarding some theoretical concepts such as the Phillips Curve, forward measures of inflation expectations, refocusing policy on employment rather than maintaining a buffer model of unemployed etc etc and the implementation of private currencies that inflate as a means to save and protect purchasing power for example.
5. He argues that the banking system should set the price of borrowing/saving money rather than central banks. That's an interesting argument that I haven't looked into.
https://www.getstoryshots.com/books/how-an-economy-grows-and-why-it-crashes-summary/
Back OT as far as his arguments regarding BTC and crypto in general go, among his many complaints chiefly is that value is derived from the utility of an asset to meet demand. That's sound and nothing new, though it was an extraordinary idea when it was first discovered, however he then uses that conclusion to promote gold as an asset class in place of BTC. That would be fine if his arguments as to why BTC does not create value or only appreciates in price due to speculation could also not be applicable to gold.
Hayek was a genius, Schiff is just another talking head.