Gold Tokens in the EU: What the Token Promises the Holder, Not the Metal, Decides Whether It Is an ART
A token that purports to keep a stable value by referencing gold is an asset-referenced token. A token that evidences ownership of identified bars may not be.
Executive Summary
A gold token is not an asset-referenced token (ART) because it mentions gold. Under MiCA it is one when it purports to maintain a stable value by referencing another value or right (Article 3(1), point 6). The issuer’s question is not “is it backed?” but “what does the holder own or claim, and does the token promise to hold a value?”.
On 24 September 2026 the European Banking Authority (EBA) told the European Commission that gold tokens “have proved particularly challenging to classify”. As at 1 September 2026 it counted no authorised ARTs.
For an issuer the classification is a budget decision. The ART route means an authorisation, a segregated reserve and at least EUR 350 000 of own funds. The other routes need a different file, which must explain why the token is not an ART.
This is general information, not legal advice. Where we draw a conclusion, we say “by our reading”.
Key Takeaways
- The commodity does not classify the token. The promise to the holder does: a right to identified property, a claim for value, or synthetic exposure.
- A token whose value is held through a reserve of assets is an ART, not a derivative (ESMA Guideline 5, paragraph 50). A synthetic reference has to be tested as a financial instrument.
- The ART route needs authorisation, a reserve, own funds and a right of redemption, and 130 working days of statutory clock.
- A white paper for an “other” crypto-asset must explain why the token is not an ART (Article 8(4)).
Two Gold Tokens, Same Vault
Take two tokens issued against bars in the same vault. The first says: you co-own these identified bars, the issuer administers custody, and delivery of metal follows from your ownership. The second says: you hold a claim on the issuer for the market value of one ounce of gold, secured by a reserve, redeemable at any time in cash or metal.
By our reading, the second purports to maintain a stable value by referencing gold, so it is an ART unless it is a financial instrument. The first may sit outside Title III, because it is a right to property and not a promise of value. Whether a supervisor agrees depends on the documents, not the label.
Change one clause and the answer moves. Give the first token a cash redemption right against the issuer at market value, and it starts to read like the second. Remove the reserve from the second and track the price by contract, and it may become a derivative.
Why This Matters Now
MiCA Title III, which covers ARTs, has applied since 30 June 2024 (Article 149). More than two years on, the EBA’s response of 24 September 2026 to the Commission’s MiCA review consultation reports 39 e-money tokens issued and 0 ARTs authorised, as at 1 September 2026.
The same response gives reasons. Gold tokens are hard to classify “often due to poor or incomplete information in the issuer’s white paper” about the holder’s entitlements. Some proposed crypto-assets have been structured “in such a way as to appear as ARTs” when they may be something else. And it says it may be considered whether the ART is “essentially a redundant category” to be assimilated into the concept of financial instrument.
By our reading, that last point matters most for planning: an issuer is choosing a structure under a definition its own supervisor wants revisited. Nothing has changed in law. The Commission must report on MiCA by 30 June 2027 (Article 140), and the outcome is not known.
How the Law Draws the Line
Recital 18 sorts crypto-assets into three types by what they seek to stabilise. One official currency: e-money token. “Another value or right, or combination thereof”: ART, a category recital 18 says “covers all other crypto-assets, other than e-money tokens, whose value is backed by assets”. Everything else, including utility tokens: the third type. Recital 41 adds that Title III applies “irrespective of how the issuer intends to design the crypto-asset”. The word “commodity” does not appear in MiCA as published in the Official Journal. A gold token is classified by the general definition.
The three European Supervisory Authorities set the order of questions in Joint Guidelines JC 2024 28 of 10 December 2024 (Article 97(1) MiCA):
- Is it a crypto-asset? A digital representation of a value or right, stored and transferred on a distributed ledger.
- Is it excluded? Unique and non-fungible tokens (Article 2(3)); financial instruments, deposits and other Article 2(4) products. For financial instruments the test refers to ESMA’s guidelines.
- Does it purport to stabilise value by one official currency? Then it is an e-money token.
- Does it purport to stabilise value by another value or right? Then it is an ART.
- Otherwise it is a Title II crypto-asset.
Two points follow for commodities. Serial numbers do not make bars unique: ESMA says a unique identifier is not a sufficient basis, and a token valued by comparability to equivalent tokens does not earn the exemption (paragraphs 67 and 69). And ESMA’s Guideline 5 asks whether the holder’s rights depend on a future commitment, whether value derives from an underlying, and whether MiFID II Annex I Section C settlement features are present (paragraph 48). It says a token might represent futures on commodities like gold or oil (paragraph 54), then draws the line: when a token’s value is established through reserved assets it should be considered an ART and not a derivative, while a synthetic reference should be analysed as a possible financial instrument (paragraph 50).
Three Gold Token Structures and Their Regimes
A screening aid built from the sources below. It is not a classification, and no structure here is a clearance.
| What the holder gets | Likely regime | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership or co-ownership of identified, allocated metal; no claim on the issuer for value; no stable-value promise | May sit under Title II as an “other” crypto-asset, if the documents support it | MiCA Art. 3(1)(6); EBA response Q2 |
| A claim on the issuer for the market value of the metal, redeemable at any time, with a reserve behind the token | ART, unless a financial instrument | MiCA Arts. 36, 39; ESMA Guideline 5, para. 50 |
| Price exposure by contract, without ownership, with a future commitment or cash settlement | Possibly a derivative: MiFID II, outside MiCA | MiCA Art. 2(4)(a); ESMA Guideline 5, paras. 48 to 54 |
| Units in a pool that holds metal, managed for a pooled return | Possibly a unit in a collective investment undertaking: a financial instrument | MiCA Art. 2(4)(a); ESMA Guideline 4 |
The utility token trap. Recital 26 says the exemption for utility tokens giving access to an existing good “should not include crypto-assets representing stored goods that are not intended to be collected by the purchaser following the purchase”. Metal in a vault that holders are not meant to collect does not fit Article 4(3)(c) as the recital reads.
What an ART Issuer Has to Deliver
| Requirement | What it means | Article |
|---|---|---|
| Who may issue | A legal person or undertaking established in the Union and authorised by its home authority, or a credit institution complying with Article 17 | 16(1) |
| Application | Programme of operations; a legal opinion that the token is neither an excluded product nor an e-money token; governance, management and shareholder proofs; policies; complaints handling; continuity and ICT arrangements | 18(2) |
| White paper | Information on issuer, token, offer, rights, technology, risks and the reserve of assets; management statement; summary stating the right of redemption | 19 |
| Timeline | 25 working days for completeness, 60 for a draft decision, 20 for ESA and ECB opinions, 25 for the decision: 130 working days before any suspension (up to 20) | 20, 21 |
| Own funds | The highest of EUR 350 000, 2 % of the average reserve, a quarter of fixed overheads | 35 |
| Reserve | Segregated legally and operationally; valued at market prices at no less than holders’ claims; issuance and redemption matched | 36 |
| Custody | By a CASP, a credit institution or, for financial instruments, an investment firm, within five working days of issuance; custodian distinct from the issuer | 37 |
| Redemption | At all times, in funds at market value or by delivering the referenced assets; no fee | 39 |
| Interest | None, including remuneration tied to how long the token is held | 40 |
Two exemptions in Article 16(2) remove the authorisation: average outstanding value never above EUR 5 000 000 over 12 months for an issuer not linked to a network of other exempt issuers, or an offer addressed solely to qualified investors who alone can hold the token. The white paper is still required and notified. A credit institution notifies at least 90 working days before first issuance (Article 17).
By our reading, an issuer that plans to hold the bars itself has a custody question before a classification question: Article 37 requires a separate legal person as custodian.
The Other Route: Title II and the Explanation It Needs
For an “other” crypto-asset, the offeror must be a legal person that has drawn up, notified and published a white paper under Articles 4 to 14. Retail buyers get a 14-day right of withdrawal (Article 13). The white paper is notified, not approved, at least 20 working days before publication (Article 8(3) and (5)).
Most issuers underestimate Article 8(4): the notification must come with an explanation of why the token is not an excluded product, an e-money token or an ART. The ESAs’ guidelines give a template (Annex A of JC 2024 28) and a parallel template for the legal opinion an ART applicant files (Annex B), completed by an in-house or external legal adviser free of unmanaged conflicts.
By our reading, Title II means less process but not less analysis. The analysis moves into a dated explanation, which is what the EBA says is often incomplete for gold tokens.
What the Register Shows
ESMA’s interim MiCA register is public. We opened its files on 1 October 2026 (ESMA shows a last update of 30 September 2026). These are observations from the files, not a legal assessment.
- ART issuers: none listed. The file contains a header row and no entries, matching the EBA’s count.
- “Other” white papers: 1 028 rows. A text search for gold and silver found four rows where the issuer name or comment refers to those metals. We did not check what each token promises. ESMA states that listed white papers have not been reviewed or approved by any competent authority.
- One example of the ownership model. One gold-token white paper in that file, updated in July 2026, describes each token as evidence of a co-ownership right in allocated gold, says it is classified as an “other” crypto-asset, says delivery of gold is an incident of ownership and not a redemption or a claim against the issuer, and says the token’s function is not price stability. We did not assess whether the classification is correct. It shows the first structure in the table: every feature placed on the property side of the line.
By our reading, commodity tokens in the EU are so far arriving by notification, not authorisation. That is the route an EBA push against arbitrage would test.
Where Commodity Structures Go Wrong
- “Backed” as the whole analysis. Backing is a fact. Classification turns on the promise.
- A redemption clause that contradicts the ownership clause. Co-ownership plus a cash claim at market value on the issuer reads like Article 39.
- A white paper that does not state the entitlements, or an Article 8(4) explanation that only asserts the label. The EBA names the first failure. The explanation must say why the token is not an ART, with the source of each definition.
- Price tracking presented as ownership. With no title to identified metal and a return that follows a price by contract, test against ESMA Guideline 5 first.
- Yield added later. A reward tied to holding time collides with Article 40 if the token is an ART and can change the answer if it is not.
The Record View
A commodity classification is only as good as the record behind it. In Stobox Intelligence, the class of a token and its regime are held as a record: the classification, the rights-text clause that supports it, the document it rests on (a legal opinion with its date, a notified white paper with its notification date) and an evidence level saying how far each was checked against the source. When the EBA position or the Commission review changes the definition, the earlier record stays and a dated one sits beside it. Nothing is averaged.
Design Note: Stobox Orbit
Stobox Orbit, a permissioned tokenization protocol, is in development and running on testnet. Its documents show how it treats this question, and where it stops. A token is designed to declare an instrument class at creation (equity, debt, fund, hybrid or other). The rule library includes a MiCA group that reads facts about the issuer and instrument, not the person transferring: whether an authorisation exists and is unexpired, whether the declared class (ART, e-money token or other crypto-asset) matches the configured one, whether a white paper notification precedes the offer, and whether a reserve attestation is fresh. The chain checks that an attestation exists and is fresh. It never sees what it says. A stale attestation is designed to block every transfer at once.
Two limits. The instrument profiles written so far cover equity, debt, real-estate vehicles, funds and hybrids; there is no commodity profile yet. And Orbit is designed to enforce what an issuer declares. It does not decide whether a gold token is an ART, a derivative or an ownership right.
What to Do on Monday
In the Stobox Tokenization Framework, this question sits in Asset Structuring (what the holder gets) and Legal Documentation (the document set).
- Write one paragraph: what does the holder own or claim, and against whom? If the answer joins ownership and a redemption claim, you have a mixed structure.
- Check the redemption clause against the ownership clause. A cash right at market value from the issuer is the Article 39 pattern.
- Draft the Article 8(4) explanation before the white paper. If it will not fit on a page, the structure is not ready.
- Price the ART route even if you plan to avoid it: EUR 350 000 own funds as a floor, a segregated reserve, 130 working days of clock.
- Keep the dated classification analysis and legal opinion in the issuance file, and re-run them when the rights text, custody or redemption changes.
FAQ
Is a token backed by gold automatically an asset-referenced token under MiCA? No. An asset-referenced token purports to maintain a stable value by referencing another value or right (MiCA Article 3(1), point 6). Backing alone does not decide it. What the holder is promised does. Synthetic exposure to gold may be a financial instrument instead.
What does an issuer need to offer an asset-referenced token in the EU? Authorisation by the home authority under Articles 16 to 21, or credit institution status under Article 17. A white paper, a reserve of assets, own funds of at least EUR 350 000 and a right of redemption follow. The Article 16(2) exemptions remove authorisation, not the white paper.
Can an issuer avoid asset-referenced token rules by structuring the token as ownership of bars? Only if the rights text really gives ownership of identified property and no promise of stable value. On 24 September 2026 the EBA said it has identified structures built to look like asset-referenced tokens or to avoid stricter rules, and that gold tokens are hard to classify.
How many asset-referenced tokens are authorised in the EU? None, according to the EBA as at 1 September 2026. The ESMA interim MiCA register file for asset-referenced token issuers, updated on 30 September 2026, held no issuer entries when we opened it on 1 October 2026.
To see how a classification looks as a record, look at Stobox Intelligence; Stobox Orbit’s documentation will follow when it is public.
Related reading in this series
- MiCA or MiFID: Your Token’s Rights Decide – the boundary that comes before this one
- The EU’s DLT Pilot Cap and the Ministers’ Meeting on 9 October – the financial-instrument route
- Central Bank Money for Tokenized Securities: Pontes Launched on 21 September – settlement for the same route
- Next in the series: GDPR and on-chain registers for EU issuers
- Background: the EU guide, tokenization and the glossary
Sources
Accessed 1 October 2026.
- Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, Articles 2, 3(1), 4, 8, 13, 16 to 21, 35 to 40, 97, 140, 149 and Recitals 18, 26 and 41: EU Publications Office
- ESMA, Final Report: Guidelines on the conditions and criteria for the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments, ESMA75-453128700-1323, 17 December 2024, Guidelines 5 and 8: ESMA
- EBA, EIOPA and ESMA, Joint Guidelines on templates for explanations and opinions, and the standardised test for the classification of crypto-assets under Article 97(1) of MiCA, JC 2024 28, 10 December 2024, Annexes A, B and C: ESMA
- EBA, Response to the EC targeted consultation on the review of MiCA, 24 September 2026, Q1, Q2, Q7 and Q13: EBA
- EBA press release, “The EBA identifies priorities for the review of MiCA”, 24 September 2026: EBA
- ESMA, Interim MiCA Register (ART issuers and “other crypto-asset” white papers files; last update shown 30 September 2026): ESMA
- European Commission, “Commission seeks feedback on the functioning of EU crypto-assets rules”, 20 May 2026: European Commission
This article is general information, not legal advice. It does not assess any specific token or issuance. Check your structure with qualified counsel in the relevant Member State.
