Gold ETF or Digital Gold? What Investors Need To Know

By: bitcoin ethereum news|2025/05/04 11:45:01
0
Share
copy
Alongside traditional gold ETFs like SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) or iShares Gold Trust (IAU), there is a new breed of blockchain-based gold instruments—most notably PAX Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT). These gold-backed cryptocurrencies offer direct exposure to physical gold while leveraging the programmability and portability of blockchain. Choose Digital Gold Like PAXG or XAUT if; You want programmable gold exposure or plan to use it in DeFi You prefer 24/7 liquidity You may want physical delivery of your gold Choose Gold ETFs if; You value strong regulatory oversight and simplicity You want to invest through your retirement account or brokerage You are unfamiliar with crypto wallet security .comparison-table{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;margin-top:20px;}.comparison-table th,.comparison-table td{padding:12px 15px;border:1px solid #ddd;text-align:left;}.comparison-table th{background-color:#2c3e50;color:#fff;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:14px;}.comparison-table tr:nth-child(even){background-color:#f9f9f9;}.comparison-table tr:hover{background-color:#f1f1f1;}.comparison-table td{font-size:15px;color:#333;}@media (max-width:768px){.comparison-table th,.comparison-table td{font-size:13px;padding:10px;}}]]> Ownership and Custody: Tokens vs Shares XAUT, issued by Tether, is backed by physical gold stored in secure vaults in Switzerland under Tether’s direct management. In contrast, PAXG, created by Paxos Trust Company, is backed by physical gold held in London vaults approved by the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), with Paxos acting as the custodian. Both operate primarily as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum blockchain, although XAUT is also available on the TRON network. Regulatory Oversight Key distinctions between the two lie in their regulatory oversight, with PAXG operating under the very stringent regulation of the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) offering a level of legal oversight and monthly third-party audits. Tether Gold (XAUT), on the other hand, is issued by TG Commodities Ltd, which is not directly regulated in the United States but includes gold holdings in Tether’s regular reserve attestations audited by BDO Italia. XAUT is licensed in El Salvador. Thus transparency differs, with PAXG undergoing monthly audits by reputable accounting firms, while XAUT provides quarterly assurance opinions. El Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele’s recent public mocking of orders from the US Supreme Court to return a prisoner held in El Salvador, may be seen by many as a cautionary tale when considering how likely El Salvador would be to assist in matters relating to XAUT. Therefore, both tokens carry inherent risks, including counterparty and regulatory uncertainties, alongside advantages such as ease of trading, fractional ownership, and potential integration into decentralized finance (DeFi). Traditional gold ETFs, meanwhile, are highly regulated financial instruments. Overseen by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), they must publish detailed holdings, undergo frequent audits, and maintain clear custodial arrangements. For conservative investors, this regulatory pedigree offers strong peace of mind. Gold-backed cryptocurrencies offer direct, fractional ownership of physical gold. As mentioned, each PAXG token is backed by one troy ounce of gold stored in Brink’s vaults in London, with individual bar serial numbers publicly viewable. Tether Gold (XAUT) similarly claims 1:1 backing with gold stored in Swiss vaults. By contrast, owning a gold ETF means holding shares in a fund that holds gold on your behalf. While ETFs like GLD are backed by physical gold stored in custodial vaults (typically HSBC), most investors have no claim to a specific bar. The gold is usually unallocated, and retail investors cannot redeem ETF shares for bullion—the right to do so belongs only to institutional entities called Authorized Participants. This makes tokenized gold more appealing to those seeking true gold ownership rather than financial exposure. Liquidity and Accessibility Gold ETFs enjoy deep liquidity and are traded on major stock exchanges like the NYSE during regular market hours. They’re accessible through any standard brokerage account and can be bought or sold just like stocks. Gold cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, trade 24/7 on global crypto exchanges such as Binance, Coinbase (PAXG), and Bitfinex (XAUT). They offer superior accessibility for investors in jurisdictions or time zones where traditional brokerages may not operate. However, their liquidity is exchange-dependent and may vary significantly across platforms. Redemption: Can You Get Physical Gold? One of the strongest differentiators is redemption. PAXG allows redemption for physical gold, even in small amounts, or for cash via platforms like BullionVault. XAUT also allows redemption, but only for holders of 50 tokens or more (around 50 ounces of gold), and the process involves identity verification and custody release from Swiss vaults and delivery to an address in Switzerland. Gold ETF shareholders generally cannot redeem their shares for gold, except in large institutional blocks (usually 100,000 shares or more), making tokenized gold a more direct pathway to physical bullion ownership. Fees and Costs PAXG and XAUT do not charge annual custody fees, which are standard in ETFs. However, token holders must contend with Ethereum gas fees, which can be high depending on network congestion, although XAUT offers a TRON-based version with much lower costs. Gold ETFs, by contrast, charge annual expense ratios typically between 0.25% and 0.40%, which cover storage, management, and administration. These fees are deducted from the fund’s assets, reducing returns over time. Taxation and Regulation Tax treatment varies. In the U.S., gold ETFs are usually taxed as collectibles—with a maximum long-term capital gains tax of 28%. Gold-backed tokens, treated as cryptocurrencies, fall under property taxation rules, which may offer capital gains tax advantages depending on your holding period and jurisdiction. From a regulatory risk standpoint, gold ETFs are well-established financial products with clearly defined investor protections. Blockchain-based gold tokens, especially unregulated ones like XAUT, may face more scrutiny in the future as global regulators tighten controls on stablecoins and crypto-backed instruments. Utility and Use Cases This is where gold-backed tokens shine. PAXG can be used in DeFi protocols, staked as collateral, or swapped for other tokens—all while maintaining exposure to gold. For example, PAXG is integrated into MakerDAO and can be used to mint stablecoins or earn yield. Gold ETFs, while versatile in traditional portfolios, lack utility outside of brokerage accounts. They cannot be used as collateral in on-chain lending, nor can they participate in decentralized exchanges or protocols. Security and Risks Security profiles differ based on platform. With PAXG or XAUT, investors must manage private keys and crypto wallets—adding a layer of complexity and risk for those unfamiliar with self-custody. However, the underlying gold is securely stored and insured. ETF investors benefit from traditional brokerage protections, such as SIPC coverage (for the brokerage account, not the ETF itself), and don’t need to manage wallets or keys. Conclusion: Which Is Right for You? Gold-backed cryptos like PAXG and XAUT represent an exciting evolution in commodity investing. They offer true gold ownership, on-chain utility, and physical redemption options—features traditional ETFs lack. However, they also come with technical complexity, much less regulatory clarity, and variable liquidity. Gold ETFs remain the standard for most institutional and conservative investors due to their regulatory strength, ease of access, and tax-sheltered compatibility with IRAs and brokerage accounts. Source: https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/gold-etf-or-digital-gold-what-investors-need-to-know

You may also like

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

On the day of commencement, should we go long or short?

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

1. Top News: Tariff Uncertainty Returns as Bitcoin Options Market Bets on Downside Risk 2. Token Unlock: $SOSO, $NIL, $MON

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

The Essence of Agentification: Use algorithms to replicate your judgment framework, replacing labor costs with API costs.

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

The network appears to be still running, but participants are dropping off.

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

What's Been Trending with Expats in the Last 24 Hours?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us

Original Title: Against Citrini7Original Author: John Loeber, ResearcherOriginal Translation: Ismay, BlockBeats


Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.


The following is the original content:


Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.


Never Underestimate "Institutional Inertia"


In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.


When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."


Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.


A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.


I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.


The Software Industry Has "Infinite Demand" for Labor


Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.


But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.


I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.


From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.


Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.


I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.


This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.


Redemption of "Reindustrialization"


Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.


But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.


As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.


We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.


We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.


Towards Abundance


The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.


My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.


At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.


If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.


Source: Original Post Link


Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more