Saturday, August 19, 2017

The Asset Collection Coin (ACC) - Is it a "Digital Currency SDR"?

Recently I have become aware of a relatively new blockchain based digital token that is calling itself the ACC (Asset Collection Coin). The information available on the internet about this new token describes it as "an asset digitization tool and platform to realize global asset digitization." The main web site for the organization behind this new token is It appears to be based in China, but it is unclear what relationship it may have with any official institutions in China. 

A promotional video for this new product has created quite a bit of discussion and uproar because it seems to suggest the primary token to be used in this new system could be some kind of new digital version of the SDR. The official SDR of course is issued by the IMF and not any organization in China. But here is what ACChain says on this web page that does arouse curiosity:

"ACChain has built a pure decentralized platform for asset digitization, it is the common community of asset tokens, by copying Asset Blockchain general ledgers to implement asset digitization, and using ACC (Asset Collection Coin) as a common exchange medium to realize
assets circulation."

. . . .

"ACChain Community is launching a global ICO for tokens that made on ACChain, structuring international supernode networks, the process of the first supernode network is also the process of the exchange between mainstream tokens in the market with Asset standard token -- ACC, they will jointly form the digital asset interchange object -- SDR digital currency. In the meantime, each global node will establish regional “general ledger token” (GLT) for regional circulation, thus, the digital currency SDR will be the main exchange coin along with tokens  of each international node’s general ledger token in the international exchange. In this ecosystem, each node’s token can use GLT to realize regional circulation, and each GLT and use ACC to realize international circulation. Those control the international supernodes, win the market."

If you have spent any time at all researching these kinds of things (SDR's, global currencies, etc) you know that when you see this kind of language show up all kinds of speculation, questions, and for some people out right fear is going to arise. Here we have something stating that its goal is to essentially try to get the entire world to digitize its real world assets into a globally tradable token (the ACC) that it also happens to suggest will be a "digital currency SDR" (see page 11). If that is not enough to stir up interest, they go on to talk about powerful "supernodes" in this system designed to collect up real world assets and say "those (who) control the international supernodes, win the market."

So, it is certainly reasonable to ask. What is this? Who is behind it? Who controls the "supernodes" in it? Does it have any kind of relationship with the IMF? If not, does it have any kind of relationship with the Chinese government or PBOC? Let's look at the facts that we can find on this.

My early research on this does not indicate that any relationship exists with the IMF that I can find. If any relationship does exist, it does not appear in the public domain anywhere that I know about. In a video I have seen on an alternative media site, an email from an IMF spokesperson displayed in the video clearly states the IMF has no involvement with ACCoin. I have no doubt the email is legitimate even though I cant show you a hard copy (you can view it on the video here if you like). It shows it to be from Silvia Zucchini who is an IMF spokesperson. The email shown in the video had this statement from her:

"Thank you for your inquiry. Please note that we are not aware of the cryptocurrency called ACCOIN and we can rule out any IMF official approval and authorization of its link to the SDR."

It is harder to know if any ties exist between ACChain. org and the Chinese government and/or PBOC. China is somewhat opaque. I cannot find anything that ties them together, but would not rule out the possibility. I simply don't know. 

The goal of this article will simply be to provide the information I can find in the public domain so that readers can review it and draw their own conclusions about it. I will add a few comments of opinion, but will admit that I have no way to know for sure of any connections one way or the other. At the same time, I prefer not to jump to conclusions or speculate either as I have seen quite a bit of this already. 

I do understand the speculation though, given the information on their web page quoted above and some unusual statements that appear in the promotional video. One example is a statement on the ACChain video that says "Blockchain, the devil uses it to destroy the world" followed immediately by a statement that says "the god uses it to benefit of mankind". Admittedly, a bit strange. But sometimes Chinese translations to english come out a bit odd sounding. That seems to happen some on the ACChain web site as well. With this background, let's look at what we can find.

On this web page towards the bottom, we see the key players involved with ACChain. Most are Chinese, but one is Ben Gibbons (Collins Barrow Partner). Collins Barrow appears to be a Canadian firm. On the Collins Barrow news page, we find this item. It says this:

"Toronto, ON – Collins Barrow Toronto is pleased to announce the firm is advising on the creation of a digital asset fund with China-based Shenzhen Puyin Blockchain Co., Ltd. (PBG) and its affiliate, Guiyang Blockchain Financial Co., Ltd (GBF)."

and refers us to this news article which says:

"Shenzhen Puyin Block Chain Co., Ltd. (PBG) and its affiliate Guiyang Blockchain Financial Co., Ltd  (GBF) has engaged with Collins Barrow Toronto (Collins Barrow) to structure a digital asset fund, focused on the market opportunity and commercial applications of blockchain technology. The fund will delve into the enormous potential of digitized assets that utilize blockchain encryption to distribute the asset’s value through the internet.

In May 2017, a digital token with an underlying real estate asset, an RET, was launched through GBF’s technology platform, ACCHAIN, and has since piqued the curiosity of the markets across the globe. The current RET offering, Sendera Ranch, is a $655-million residential development project of Serene Country Homes in one of the hottest housing markets in the U.S., Dallas-Fort Worth. Once formed, the digital asset fund will invest and trade in assets such as the RET to provide qualified investors with enhanced diversification and greater security. Investors of the fund will also have access to relevant and transactional data as all information is recorded through blockchain. 

Collins Barrow, on behalf of PBG and GBF, is exploring this opportunity with various fund managers, institutional capital managers and investment firms. The creation of such fund further underscores the growing impact of blockchain technology in the financial services industry.

. . . .

About PBG and GBF

PBG represents one of the first China-based blockchain promoting agencies combining standard economic systems with the blockchain technology, and also establishing standards to create, market and trade digitally-backed assets, also known as Tokens and other digital cryptocurrencies currencies.
Assets Collection Chain (ACCHAIN) is an open global community and a decentralized asset digitization platform and tool created by GBF, an affiliate of PBG, in order to further develop their blockchain technology and ecosystem development."

editors note: I will have a followup article with more information on the real estate project in Texas
In case you missed it, this web page on ACChain lists Jia Wan as CEO of Guiyang Blockchain and also the "Originator of ACChain". So it is clear that Jia Wan is working with Ben Gibbons at Collins Barrow in some kind of partnership. It appears they want to promote the concept of ACChain as a new platform to try and utilize blockchain technology to "digitize" real assets into tradable tokens (ACC's). The news article above says:

"Collins Barrow, on behalf of PBG and GBF, is exploring this opportunity with various fund managers, institutional capital managers and investment firms."

ACChain does have a Twitter account you can view here. There is a link on this twitter page that says "Peoples Republic of China" which takes you to a Twitter feed using that same name. I do not know if that is an official Twitter page for the government in China or not. The ACChain Twitter page is mostly links to PR notices regarding various activities of their token like this one announcing that the ACC would begin trading on a Canadian exchange known as AllCoin. At the end of this PR notice is this information about ACChain:

About Us 
Asset Collection Chain, or ACChain, is a global, open source blockchain and decentralized-asset-digitization platform based in Guiyang City, China. ACChain is operated by Guiyang Blockchain Financial Co., a provider of management and operational services. ACChain’s mission is to develop the potential of blockchain technology and asset digitization. ACC is the standard-and-common ledger token of ACChain, allowing exchange and circulation of tokens on the platform.

All this gives us a fair amount of information on ACChain. Readers can look at this information and decide for themselves if ACChain is purely a private venture operating from China or if they think it may have some kind of connection to the Chinese government. I can find no connection of any kind to the IMF. These are facts I could find. Now for a few added comments.
My added comments: At this time based on the evidence above and a bit more I will publish in a followup article on the real estate project in Texas, it seems likely to me that ACChain is not tied in any official way to a government agency in China or the PBOC. It looks a private venture that is marketing what they feel could be a new concept for the use of blockchain technology and is using Collins Barrow in Canada to help promote the idea to fund managers and investment firms. All of this suggests to me that this is private sector activity while admitting that in China it would be hard to know what kind of ties a company like this might have (formal or informal) with the Chinese government.

The fact that they describe their ACC coin as part of a process that will "form the digital asset interchange object -- SDR digital currency" is very interesting to me though. I know for sure that they cannot possibly be talking about an official SDR digital blockchain based currency issued by the IMF because no such thing currently exists. Right now, the IMF issues official SDR's by allocating them ONLY to member nations, and certainly not to a private company based in China.  Also, as noted above, an IMF media spokesperson has denied that the IMF is involved with the Asset Collection Coin. 

So what is the "SDR digital currency" they talk about? My guess is that they are talking about denominating the ACC in SDR's in the same way as bonds denominated in SDR's were issued last year in China. Being denominated in SDR's does not mean they are official SDR's issued at the IMF. Instead, it means that the face value of the asset or debt instrument is stated in SDR's as the unit of account (instead of say Yuan). The SDR has an exchange rate with all the major currencies published on the IMF web site. If you want, you can state anything you like based in SDR's. 

For example, let's say I have $10,000 US dollars in the bank, but I wanted to know how many SDR's that would equal. Using the exchange rate for the US dollar and the SDR of .709 (as of this writing), I could say I have .709* 10,000 = 7,090 SDR's in my account, but I wouldn't own any official SDR's issued by the IMF. I would just have stated my account value based on SDR's instead of US dollars. The IMF does describe what they call M-SDR's, but those also are not official SDR's (O-SDR's) issued by the IMF. (see this page for info on M-SDR's ). 

I realize all this gets confusing very quickly for most people. I also fully acknowledge that since this organization is based in China, it is hard to know for sure what kind of ties they may have to official institutions. I do not think this firm has ties to the IMF nor do I think they are working on some new IMF sanctioned "digital SDR currency". The political blow back to the IMF for doing something like that in secret would probably be enormous. Member nations have to vote on things like that (creating a new kind of SDR). I cannot see the US going along with anything like that at the IMF, especially under the current Trump Administration. Keep in mind the US has veto power at the IMF under the current voting rules. And again, the IMF spokesperson clearly denied involvement by email.

I do think it is kind of surreal that this outfit in China has developed the concept for a "digital SDR currency" to be used as a global currency by anyone around the world on a mobile phone. I have written about a similar concept a few times here on the blog and this product (as described) is very close to what I was trying to visualize, except I was visualizing it coming from the IMF and not a private venture (?) based in China. Backing this currency with all kinds of real tangible assets is also interesting and not the first time I have seen this idea mentioned. At this time though, there is no evidence to suggest that the ACCoin is actually a "Digital SDR Currency" sanctioned by the IMF or the BIS. 

Bottomline best guess for now: ACChain is either a stand alone private venture or possibly some kind of market experiment with unknown ties to official entities in China like the PBOC or Chinese government (see more on the latter below).

Added note (after writing the article above): Alternative theory for ACChain --- I noted above that I have no way to know if ACChain has some kind of relationship with either the PBOC or the Chinese government. There is a theory I did find (in a Google search) in the first 35 minutes of this video that attempts to make the case that ACChain must have some kind of tie to these official entities. It's a deeper dive than I presented here into some more detailed information on ACChain (like this white paper) that could be used to support that point of view. I don't make any such claim here as I simply don't know.  

But I wanted to give readers this link so if you are interested you can see the information presented and decide for yourself. I do not know the presenter (David DuByne) in this video. I just listened to the information presented in Parts I and III in an effort to hear an alternative point of view. Some evidence he presented was that apparently there are some substantial amounts invested in ACChain already in the various tokens involved. David DuByne says large investments like that (200 million in the example he showed) are not possible without approval from the Chinese government. David DuByne appears to have experience doing business in China

He also suggests that ACChain might be something like an experimental trial balloon by the Chinese government using a private venture to see what kind of market reception this whole concept gets. I won't rule that out even as I again admit that I would have no way to prove it one way or the other. 

I will try to continue to monitor ACChain to see if it gains broad institutional support and promotion globally. If we see some big international banks get involved with it, that would get my attention and add some weight to this theory in my mind. Any official endorsement by China or the PBOC would of course be significant news.

In this video, David DuByne also suggests that this venture is going to eventually lead to a new global digital/blockchain currency issued by either the IMF or the BIS to replace the US dollar when the present monetary system collapses. As I stated above, I find no evidence at this time to support that, but I have no way to know what might happen if the present monetary system did collapse and various competing alternatives for a new system did arise. 

I watch for that all the time (signs pointing towards major monetary system change), but we won't know what would happen in that scenario until and unless it actually happens. I continue to believe that who the public blamed for any collapse of the present system would greatly impact who they trusted to administer a new one. I don't think any one could predict that for sure. I know I can't. Janet Yelllen first said she sees no prospect for such a crisis any time soon, and then she later walked that statement back a bit. So apparently, she can't predict what will happen either.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Robert Pringle: Do Central Banks Rely Too Much on Economists?

Whenever Robert Pringle publishes a new article on his blog, I try to feature it here. Mr. Pringle brings a unique perspective to the issues we try to follow here because he has spent a lifetime working with central bankers all around the world. He can provide insights that I don't think you find very often in most mainstream media publications.

In this new article on his blog, he asks if central bankers rely too much on the views of economists and then reflects on the question in a somewhat philosophical way. Below are a few excerpts from his article.


"If  economics is likened to a religion it is easy to see how it may be viewed as dangerous. It may blind its devotees to the claims of competing world-views. If  economists arrogantly claim that their special insight gives them the right to prescribe policy, it may provide spurious legitimacy for harmful actions. It may lead them to ignore the fact that differences in values may lead people to prefer different outcomes to that which appears economically “efficient”..

. . . . .

It may surprise people to know that, in my experience, central bankers do not like money – I mean, they do not like to see their job as handling money. They hardly ever mention money in their communications. An authoritative review of central banks’ inflation targeting regimes and communications strategies does not once mention the word “money”.

Andy Haldane of the Bank (BOE) believes that money is a subject dear to the hearts of central bankers.  I don’t agree. Of course, they are only human; they do not decline a decent salary. But professionally, they tend either to dismiss it or run away from it. Especially in the UK and US – continental Europeans and Japanese have somewhat different historical experiences and different cultural attitudes.

Ever since I can remember, the Bank of England has distanced itself from both the word and the idea. Post World War II, up to and including the 1960s, it left such matters to the Treasury. In the 1970s, its executives thought that inflation was the result of cost-push pressures, conflict over the distribution of incomes and government sfiscal policy- i.e. nothing to do with money or with the Bank.  In the 1980s it fought a bitter battle with Margaret Thatcher’s government to avoid being saddled with targets for money."

What the Bank hated most

"The Bank (BOE) hated, above all, being told to target the money base.  It won the struggle. It thus avoided being held accountable for the only thing it could, without any doubt, control – its own balance sheet.  It later dropped all monetary aggregates with indecent haste. As Charles Goodhart among others has often pointed out, money does not feature in the models central banks use to – well – manage money. Just look at any Inflation Report. They are all about output gaps, prices, etc.

It is ironic that only since the collapse of all central bankers’ dreams of financial stability – only since the Great Crash – have they openly turned to money itself. Indeed,  they have tried to create as much of it as possible. They even admit to it. They embrace it as the cure for so-called deflation (which is more myth than reality) while turning their eyes away in distaste. But society has not returned the embrace. Private money has shrunk in the face of the tsunami of official money.

Some central bankers were so cross about this they propose to nationalise money creation once and for all.

What really went wrong was that  their failure to understand what money is meant that when the central banks finally embraced it, they did so at the wrong time and in the wrong way."

. . . . .

New waves of credit

"Headlines again proclaim that we are “awash in a sea of easy credit” (The Times, July 26).

Our defences are weak. We have money but no true standard.  Yes, some central bankers have started to warn about the risks of credit expansion. But the system forces central banks to go on misusing money. They see it as a technique of social engineering. That is to mistake its nature.

. . . . 

Added comments: Recently we ran this two part article that posted the actual email exchange discussion on monetary system reform between Robert Pringle and Allan Meltzer back in 2014. Readers who missed that may enjoy taking a look at it now. It has some fascinating comments by both Robert Pringle and Allan Meltzer. Also, we will feature a new similar (but more expanded) article on this later this month.

It appears we will have another gold linked payment system launching in the fourth quarter of 2017 and based in London. GlintPay has a pre launch web site (click here) and was recently featured in TechCrunch (click here). This is a quote from the TechCrunch article:

"However, I understand that Glint will offer a frictionless way to both store and spend your money in gold, including at the point of sale, just like a regular local currency." 

I was also forwarded this exclusive quote to use here from GlintPay CEO Jason Cozens:

“Although businesses like GoldMoney are doing a very good job of stimulating the conversation around the need of alternative and independent currency, Glint will be very different from them. Glint is focused on giving clients reliability, independence and choice and we are excited about bringing these qualities to the market later this year.”  ---  Jason Cozens, Founder and CEO of Glint

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Important News Note: Per Andrew Maguire - ABX Severs Ties with BullionCoin

Just as the BullionCoin web site launched today Andrew Maguire puts up this comment on his Twitter feed:

VERY DisappointingDigital Gold fumbles golden opportunity to change precious metal markets forever. ABX has a plan B
12:55 PM - 15 Aug 2017


Below I have pasted in the text of the link just above and after that some added comments:

ABX withdraws from its collaboration with Digital Gold Limited

15 August 2017

Allocated Bullion Exchange (‘ABX’) has issued this statement in response to questions from our Members, their customers, stakeholders, potential BullionCoin investors, and the precious metals industry at large, concerning the release of Digital Gold Limited’s (‘Digital Gold’) BullionCoin digital asset product.

Regrettably, and effective immediately, ABX’s Board has today, Tuesday the 15th of August 2017, resolved to cease any further collaboration with Digital Gold.

This action was not taken lightly, but rather, as a result of recently obtained information, as well as ABX’s inability to reconcile material risks to supporters of the BullionCoin product structure due to the following factors:

1.    Against strong advice from ABX, Digital Gold was insisting to structure its metal ownership so that investors in the digital asset would be, in our view, unsecured creditors of Digital Gold. This form of ownership is commonly referred to as an ‘unallocated’ holding, and results in the investor only having a ‘claim’ to the metal, as opposed to having ownership of the asset and being protected in the event of a Digital Gold default. It has long been ABX’s view that this model is inherently flawed and would result in genuine counterparty risk to holders of BullionCoin. A detailed explanation of ‘allocated vs. unallocated’ metal ownership and the substantial risks associated with unallocated metal, can be found 

2.    ABX has been unable to satisfy itself regarding the security and integrity of Digital Gold’s bullion holdings structure and thus ABX is of the view that there are risks similar to other flawed cryptocurrency businesses in recent times where investors have lost significant amounts of money;

3.    ABX have received confirmation that a competitor of Digital Gold intends to initiate legal action against Digital Gold upon the launch of BullionCoin due to alleged infringement of intellectual property rights. This, in our view, would have the potential to put at risk all BullionCoin-backed unallocated bullion, to the detriment of BullionCoin holders and investors;

4.    Digital Gold is insisting on utilising private vaulting networks that, in ABX’s view, would permit external bullion deposits with limited quality verification, thereby circumventing, and being not subject to ABX’s robust bullion framework for assuring the quality of the bullion in its network;

5.    Digital Gold is developing and utilising a non-standard matching engine and order book within its BullionCoin System (‘BCS’) secondary market which, in our view, will result in an atypical trading experience that ABX believes will cause confusion and disputes;

6.    Digital Gold has made frequent and substantial scope of project amendment requests and in ABX’s view, has been unable to meet any mutually agreed project development timelines; and

7.    ABX’s unwavering commitment to allocated and transparent precious metal ownership.

ABX is disappointed that it has been forced to withdraw from this collaboration. Unfortunately, ABX believes that it simply had no alternative as it found itself in the untenable position whereby the mechanics of the business model originally pitched to ABX were not what Digital Gold ultimately delivered.

ABX intends to continue work to support and / or launch its own precious metal backed digital currency. The experience with Digital Gold has resulted in the Board forming a view that they do not have the expertise or experience or professionalism to launch a product or service which will adequately satisfy the needs of ABX's stakeholders. Based on ABX's experience, and the legal advice taken, ABX is recommending to its stakeholders that they do not work with Digital Gold for the reasons stated above.

On a positive note however, ABX has recently been contacted by several other bullion-backed digital currency providers who have identified ABX as the market leading facility for allocated physical precious metals. Now that ABX has withdrawn from the Digital Gold collaboration, the Board has approved collaborations with several other advanced stage allocated precious metal digital currency providers.

To this end, ABX is pleased to announce that it will be issuing a press release to its stakeholders on these new collaborations and partnerships in the immediate future.

Allocated Bullion Exchange

My added comments: This certainly came out of nowhere. The ink was not fully dry from our article just below on the BullionCoin launch when this news broke. I cannot say I am real surprised though because during my efforts to research this as potential news impacting the gold market, I encountered difficulty getting consistent answers to some questions I had asked related to the institutional support for BullionCoin. At this point, there is nothing to indicate such institutional support exists and the comments this year about large gold buy orders remain unexplained and of doubtful credibility. For anyone interested, we documented the full trail of comments on this during 2017 in this article up to 8-15-17 where the trail ends.

If more news surfaces, we will cover it here if it appears to be significant news. Otherwise, our coverage of BullionCoin ends here.

Andrew Maguire adds this additional Twitter comment.

Added note 8-16-17: David Gibson of GoldVu who provided some information by email for our earlier article here released this statement regarding BullionCoin on his web site here.

Important Notice on BullionCoin following its launch on 15 August:
"BullionCoin and the Allocated Bullion Exchange have been collaborating closely with each other until it's launch in order to deliver a gold & silver backed digital currency.
However, a few minutes after BullionCoin's website went live, the ABX issued a statement announcing it was withdrawing from its collaboration with BullionCoin citing several reasons.
Whilst this unfolds, I am going to treat the information as objectively as I can, and so should you.
I strongly suspect it may well turn out to be a storm in a tea cup and not actually be anywhere near as drastic as it sounds, and BullionCoin could well become the digital currency we all want it to be.
Things like this often happen in business and it should not reflect poorly on either party as they both have a great product.
I have spoken to Thomas Koenye, the co-founder of BullionCoin, and it looks like ABX's statement may have been unfairly issued and there are some areas that need clarification which I have added as a pre-face to ABX's statement. Thomas' reply is here.
However, as my primary and overriding concern is the safety and security of client and potential client money and their vaulted precious metals, I will always take the options and decisions that will not expose you to any risks. I will update you as soon as I have completed my due diligence on this matter.
If you have any questions about this then please do contact me and I'll be happy to help. You can also contact BullionCoin and ABX for further clarification from them."
Yours faithfully,
David Gibson, Managing Director
My additional added comments: If you take time to read this point by point response by David Gibson to the statement released by ABX, you will understand what I meant above when I said I had difficulty getting consistent answers to some questions I had asked. It is pretty clear from this statement by ABX Associate Member David Gibson  (GoldVu) that he was not always on the same page in terms of his understanding of BullionCoin. Also, note that he says he was "very surprised at ABX's statement". I have no doubt that is true.

Trying to cover this story has been interesting, but will end with this article unless something truly impacting the gold market arises out of this. The business dispute between BullionCoin and ABX is not the type of news we have interest in covering here. We did cover this story until the BullionCoin launch because of the potential for this to impact the gold market and the price of gold. No such impact appears imminent based on this latest news. Time to move on.

BullionCoin Launches Web Site

Today BullionCoin launched its new web site and released its white paper. The web site can be viewed here and this is the link to the white paper. The white paper is 27 pages long. In a quick review of the white paper, I did not see any information that did not agree with the basic concepts of BullionCoin that are out on the GoldVu web site we mentioned in our earlier article. The white paper makes no mention of the Allocated BullionExchange (ABX).

Here is some information from the web site about the debit card that BullionCard will offer:

"In order to simplify payments in global “fiat” currencies, like US dollars, BullionCoin members have the opportunity to ask for a BullionCoin MasterCard. This highly convenient prepaid card facility is denominated in gold (XAAU) or silver (XAAG) BullionCoins and allows members to pay directly in BullionCoins.

The Prepaid BullionCoin Debit Card is a world-class financial product allowing you to be topped-up at any moment without having to sell BullionCoins. The prepaid card converts XAAU or XAAG BullionCoins instantly into any fiat currency to complete a payment or transaction. Prepaid card payments are only limited by the balance of member’s account."

This description make it sound like this debit card will actually convert the physical gold or silver in the card holders account to the local fiat currency of choice instantly at the point of sale. I do not know if that would be viewed as "sale" of the actual gold or silver for tax reporting purposes or not. I did not see any tax issues discussed on the web site or in the white paper. 

One item of interest on page 19 of the white paper is that BullionCoin chose to setup a centralized KYC (Know Your Client) process. They feel an advantage to this is that a lost or stolen BullionCoin eWallet can be recovered providing more safety than many crytocurrencies do in this regard.

At first glance, BullionCoin appears to work pretty much like it has been described on the GoldVu web site and the information about how it will work are all on the web site and in the white paper. All that remains now is to see what kind of support actually exists for BullionCoin. 

Along those lines, there was no further news on the 250 ton gold buy order that has been said to be coming on the web site launched today. Since that is probably the major question people will have related to what has been talked about all this year leading to a gold price "reset", here is the information I have at this point in a bullet point list:

- in this article, I published David Gibson (of GoldVu) stating by email that only Andrew Maguire knew the details related to those comments about sovereign sized buy orders of 250 tons. He also told me BullionCoin should launch within 3-4 weeks which has turned out to be correct. 

- in one twitter comment  recently, Andrew Maguire said that the one of the events he has talked about this year would lead to the 250 ton gold buy. We assume he meant the launch of BullionCoin, but David Gibson has said that it is possible that the 250 ton buy order is not directly related to demand from the launch of BullionCoin. We also have this recent twitter comment. We simply do not have very clear information on this so far and it seems clear that not even ABX member David Gibson knows the details behind these general comments.

- in Twitter comments here, David Gibson (GoldVu) responds to some questions on the 250 ton gold buy order. He repeats what he told me by email that many people are assuming the the BullionCoin launch would generate the 250 ton buy order, but that may not be the case and people should not assume that. In other words, the 250 ton buy order might be a separate event not directly related to initial demand for BullionCoin.

- in this article I laid out the full timeline of articles and interviews done by Andrew Maguire in 2017 talking about a coming gold price reset and the 250 ton gold buy order. At this point we are still waiting for this to materialize. I will update this article for about another month to see if anything further of significance surfaces related to BullionCoin and then post the full timeline again. Unless we get some bigger news by then, that will be the final update here on BullionCoin. (update note: looks like we got bigger news already today, see news update article just above)

At this point, until there is some kind of tangible news or evidence related to the large gold buy orders that have been predicted and substantial institutional support for BullionCoin, there is not much more to report in relation to what we try to cover here.

If news on that does surface, we will cover it. Otherwise we will just move on since thus far BullionCoin has not made any significant impact on the gold market that can be seen. The market has not given any indication so far that anyone sees a big immediate demand for physical gold or silver coming soon that cannot be met with supply. If that does happen, it will clearly take the market by surprise. 

Update 8-15-17 (3:45 pm CST): The ink on this article was barely dry when this news from the ABX broke. The ABX announces it has severed ties with BullionCoin and will move in another direction. It does not appear that BullionCoin will have any significant impact on the gold market so we will not cover it further here since that was the original reason we did try to cover it.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Incrementum: Advisory Board Minutes Discussion on US Wanting a Weaker Dollar?

This is the last of our articles featuring the recently released July 5th Board Meeting Minutes put out by Incrementum. We have noted that this report is really full of interesting and relevant information in terms of what we follow here. 

Below are some excerpts from the report on discussion about the idea that there may be poltical pressure in the US to get a weaker US dollar along with some reasons why that may well indeed happen.


Ronald Stöferle

"Luke (Gromen), you have mentioned the economists’ petition aimed at Yellen to increase the inflation targets, which hasn’t been mentioned very often in the media. I think this fits in with your views that Donald Trump wants and needs a weaker dollar. And with the disinflationary developments that are currently taking place I believe the Fed will have a hard time continuing to raise rates, and I believe they will have to make a u-turn. I would appreciate if you could talk about this economist petition, and then give us your market outlook for the second half of 2017 and some of your best trade ideas."

Luke Gromen

"Sure. A few weeks ago, there was a letter sent to Janet Yellen that was signed by around 20 senior level neo-liberal academic economists, many of which had served in the prior administration or in past administrations. All of these economists effectively said that we are not achieving our inflation targets and not only do we need to focus on achieving it; we should also increase the target. This went underreported in the media.

Moreover, Trump is talking about exporting oil all over the world, but with the dollar where it is, US shale resources are one of the world’s highest marginal cost sources of oil. And recently two former IMF officials released a book, which was featured prominently in the Wall Street Journal, and they explicitly said that the dollar is too strong and that it needs to be devalued. So we are seeing tension between the strong dollar “mechanics” numerous analysts and economists are talking about (heavily driven by Eurodollar market USD shortages and US rate differentials) and the internal US political pressure to weaken the dollar."

Mark Valek

"When do you think the US dollar will weaken, and when do you believe this knee-jerk reaction of a stronger dollar during market sell-offs will change? Would a change in this type of behavior confirm your view?"

Luke Gromen: 

"During recent risk-off periods the dollar has not been acting well, i.e. there has not been a knee jerk reaction where investors automatically buy the dollar. Historically, the dollar has appreciated during risk-off periods. But in the last few weeks we have seen the dollar depreciate significantly on risk-off days. That’s the type of behavior you would expect to see if the dollar is falling out of favor, but it’s too early to say if there has been a paradigm shift. It was mentioned earlier in the call that bonds and equities have been selling off at the same time in recent weeks, which is also something you might expect to see in such a paradigm shift. But this is also too early to tell, so we are watching the markets and seeing how they develop going forward. "

Please Click Here to read the full Incrementum Report


Added news note: I added the paragraph below to the page of information on SDR's found in the upper hand of this blog (or click here). A new currency Token called the ACChain (Asset Collection Coin) based in China has created quite of bit of discussion and uproar on alternative media platforms. The promo video for this new token seems to imply it is some kind of new digital version of the SDR. I do not believe that is the case as explained below. I added the information below because it is the best information I have on this at this time. If that changes, I will update it over time. I am working on more research on this for now.

August 2017 - Alternative Media View of the SDR - this video appears describing a new currency token (ACC - Asset Collection Coin) as being tied to a new digital form of the SDR that the IMF would propose as a replacement for the US dollar. It's an interesting idea, but I cannot find any connection between this new token and the IMF. An expert I talk to on these kinds of issues does not believe this would be any kind of SDR from the IMF, but rather what he calls an example of a private SDR like the SDR bonds China has issuedAt this point, this appears to just be a private venture token (based in China) that is using the SDR instead of the US dollar or the Yuan as the unit of account. An account holder of these tokens would see them valued in SDR's instead of dollars for example, but would not actually own official SDR's. This does however show how it is possible to some day create a digital version of the SDR which is something we have talked about as being possible in the future. The best information I have right now is that nothing like that is on the near term horizon. I would expect to see some national central banks issue a central bank digital currency long before any kind of digital SDR might be looked at based on information I get from experts I talk to on this. I am keeping an eye on Singapore.

BullionCoin Update 8-14-17: BullionCoin has sent out the email below to anyone who signed up to request information on how it will work:



BullionCoin launch date coincides with Nixon Shock of August 15th 1971. The difference in 2017 is made by bringing back the Gold and Silver Standard.

Digital Gold Limited introduces BullionCoin Market which constitutes of two closed marketplace ecosystems:
  • Primary Marketplace where BullionCoin is created - BullionCoin Exchange (BCX)
  • Secondary Marketplace where BullionCoin is traded - BullionCoin System (BCS)

BullionCoin Exchange (BCX) is an online ecosystem marketplace where investors are able to buy BullionCoin contracts and create BullionCoin units as additional supply in Secondary Marketplace.

BullionCoin System (BCS) is an online channel/organic environment, accessed via a web-browser, tablet or smartphone, which provide end-users with features to buy/ sell or trade BullionCoins in units/ fractions between participants, transfer ownership of BullionCoins between members on title transfer basis and exchange BullionCoins with merchants on bartering mechanics.

Digital Gold Limited offers:
  • “Ongoing Discount” where Investors of Primary Marketplace will always have the opportunity to purchase BullionCoins into existence at a discount at any point in time.
  • “Time Limited Incentive Schemes on Coins Creation” from time to time as Reward Payout for Life to participants as Early Adopters (Ambassadors) in the Primary Marketplace.
  • “Ongoing Incentive Schemes on Coins Creation” as Reward Payout for Life to participants (Prime Investors) in the Primary Marketplace.
  • “Ongoing Referral Program on eWallet Recruiting” as Reward Payout for Life on every additional eWallet recruited by participants of Secondary Marketplace.

Next Steps…
  • Our website will launch August 15th 2017 (tomorrow!)
  • “30 Days of Early Adopters” window will be open for pre-commitments applications of interested investors in the Primary Marketplace for BullionCoin creation.
  • During which all interests will be collected, potential investors will be complete KYC and AML requirements and corresponding inactive accounts will be set up.
  • After this 30 Days of Early Adopters window, private correspondents will be communicated with details on Subscription Execution that will entail completing documentation, activating wallets, funding account and placing purchase orders for BullionCoin contracts.
  • Each Application will be treated according to its eligibility from the available incentive schemes.

We welcome all your enquiries, questions and comments by using the button below.
-- The BullionCoin Team    
Link connected to the button on the email: