Texas to issue a gold backed crypto?

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Benefactor
Messages
14,545
Reaction score
4,592
Points
268
Location
Texas
No idea if this bill has legs, but Texas surprises sometimes so who knows...


 
Last edited:
Texas has been crypto friendly for a while. It probably helps that the Texas government is housed in Austin which is the center of a tech industry boom.

This seems to just be a synergy between the State's crypto friendly business climate and the State's existing Gold repository.
 
It occurs to me that this gold backed crypto would be a digital form of Goldbacks.
 
The Texas legislature ends their current session in a week. The digital gold bill was added to the general calendar almost two weeks ago, but it is looking like there won't be sufficient time for the body to consider it and pass it this session as lawmakers seem to be preoccupied with the Texas-Mexico border and trans kid issues at the moment.

 
I'm all for backing a currency with gold, silver or any other commodity as long as the currency is redeemable in that commodity.

In addition to a currency that is backed by something, I think we also need state banks that are for in state transactions only. No interstate commerce allowed so the feds have no say in the matter. Private banking for private citizens with no reporting to federal agencies.
 
As expected, the Texas legislature's session ended without considering HB4903. Maybe it will be reintroduced next session.
 
As expected, the Texas legislature's session ended without considering HB4903. Maybe it will be reintroduced next session.
There's always a lot of stuff they don't get to.
....and in general, that's a very good thing.

One of the best things about Texas is that the Legislature only meets for 5 Months every other year. Just imagine how much stuff they could screw up if they were in session year round.
 
Seems like these days they are already in session continuously thanks to governors calling special sessions all the time, but yeah limited government is best government.
 
They need to issue 90% gold and silver bullion medals since issuing their own coinage is unlawful according to the CONUS. They would probably compete with Phils and Maples in a year or less as long as the product quality was good. I would buy it as long as it didn't have any sports logos.
 


Looks to be a measure to shore up political support for a 2025 reintroduction of 2023's HB4903 bill.
 
No idea if this bill has legs, but Texas surprises sometimes so who knows...

The gold depository they built - $25M? - is basically empty and unused. I believe the University of Texas - or was it some pension fund? - put there some gold but later took it out and sold it.
It seems that there are forces who support gold but there are also forces who oppose it. Or they believe in gold but don't have a clear strategy.
 

The Texas Bullion Repository was approved in 2015 and opened for business in 2018:


UTIMCO never did end up moving their gold holdings to the Texas repository. I'm assuming it never happened because they wanted to (and eventually did) sell the gold (per an email I received from UTIMCO when I asked them about it). The COMEX refused to allow the Texas repository into their system.

That said, I cannot find any reports that indicate how much bullion is vaulted there. Is it "basically empty and unused"? I have no idea. I can't find any info one way or the other to confirm or deny that claim.
 
The COMEX refused to allow the Texas repository into their system.
I don't understand, if they want to use it as Bullion Depository, who cares about the comex.
Why should the Comex allow the Texas Depository into their system in order for that building to be used as bullion depository?
 
UTIMCO <> Texas

UTIMCO wanted gold vaulted where they could trade it via Comex. Comex refused to bring Texas Bullion Repository into their vaulting network because of physical distance from Chicago IIRC.
 
UTIMCO wanted gold vaulted where they could trade it via Comex.

Comex is a market for futures. It's not a spot market. If one wants to trade bullion one goes on a spot market.
So UTIMCO wanted to trade futures, and use the Texas BD as warehouse.
Comex says no, UTIMCO abandons the whole gold idea.

Seems to me they weren't serious about it in the first place...
 
UTIMCO wanted gold vaulted where they could trade it via Comex. Comex refused to bring Texas Bullion Repository into their vaulting network
Sorry but the more I think about it the more it doesn't make any sense to me

UTIMCO is not the owner/manager of Texas Bullion Depository. They are just one client of them.
Owner/manager of the BD is the state of Texas - probably through some subordinate company.
So one client of them wants the Depository to become a CME warehouse and the State of Texas says ok, let's give it a try?

The State of Texas advertised the BD - and justified the $25M expense - as a place where to deposit bullion, not as a CME warehouse.
And after they finished it they try to turn it into a CME warehouse?
At the request of one of their clients?

Why do they call it - misleadingly - Bullion Depository if they want to use it as a warehouse for a futures trading house?
Why not just call it Texan Comex Warehouse?


And they didn't think about the fact that turning it into a CME warehouse - acquiescing to the request of one of their clients - maybe they could scare away potential clients? Texan clients who don't want their metal inventories to be put into a place overseen by a Chicagoan company?
Of course they did.
That was the whole point of the Texas Bullion Depository: Your Texan metal vaulted on Texan ground, managed by Texans.


Last but not least, let's consider the cultural and political aspect, the optics so to speak.
We are talking about Texas, as in the most "autonomist" and "independentist" state in the USA.
The BD was proudly sold as a texan thing, look at us, we have our own bullion depository.
So after they built it, the State of Texas decides to put the Bullion Depository they were so proud of under the supervision of ... Chicago?
 
UTIMCO was never a client of the TBD. UTIMCO used to own a lot of physical gold warehoused in NYC. They decided not to move their gold when the TBD was established because they wanted to keep the gold where it could easily be sold if needed. UTIMCO is an institution that has to answer to various parties. It's not some goldbug dude with diamond hands.
 
Good to know PM, thanks
although I wasn't doubting what you wrote about UTIMCO but rather the idea of the State of Texas trying to turn the Depository into a CME warehouse.

"Comex refused to bring Texas Bullion Repository into their vaulting network" means the owner - or the manager, but obviously with the permission of the owner - of the TBD asked the Comex to recognise the BD as one of their vault i.e. as a CME warehouse.

The State of Texas trying to turn their new Depository into a CME warehouse?
For the reasons listed above, I don't believe it.

On the other hand, if they did, that would explain why the Depository is currently under-utilised: the State of Texas has no clear idea about what to do with it.
 
Context...

October 2015:

June 2017:

September 2017:

November 2019:

~~~

I have looked before, but failed to find any reporting on how much business the TBD is actually doing. I'm guessing there is a public record somewhere since it is a State run operation, but I have not figured out where to find it. That said, the TBD did attract BullionStar (a Singapore based bullion dealer) to open doors in the USA across the street:


~~~

Aside from all of that, the proposed legislation which is the topic of this thread would expand the use of the TBD with the State of Texas managing a fully allocated stack of gold backing a digital crypto token. It could be huge if it ever gets off the ground.
 
Last edited:
This post may contain affiliate links for which PM Bug gold and silver discussion forum may be compensated.
Early voting is happening this week for the Republican and Democratic primaries. On the Republican ballot is proposition 7:
The Texas Legislature should establish authority within the Texas State Comptroller’s office to administer access to gold and silver through the Texas Bullion Depository for use as legal tender.

Mark Dorazio, author of HB4903 is asking Texans to vote for it:
 
I guess we need less career politicians and more politicians coming from the private sector...


Glint, interesting. I don't know them. Glint card enabling to spend your gold at point of sale. Wonderful.
They don't use blockchain, so technically speaking there is no gold-backed currency, but they fulfil the same task of gold-backed cryptos i.e. enabling gold to be used as everyday money within a digital society, so I'm all for it.
I miss regular independent audits of their metal stocks though.
 
Add a legalize weed amendment to the bill while they are at it?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…