Тази страница се публикува само на английски език, тъй като съдържа правните формулировки на групата относно ценните книжа и оперативния метод. Един превод не би имал обвързваща сила.
Mining Global Group/Tokenization
Real-world assets
We do not tokenize the ground. Here is what we do instead, and why.
Real-world assets
Almost every mineral tokenization pitch starts in the same place: a deposit, a resource estimate, a spot price, and a token that supposedly represents a slice of it. We have studied that model in detail and our conclusion is that it does not work — not because the technology is immature, but because it collides with mining law, and because the market has already run the experiment and shown the result.
What does work sits downstream: goods already produced, documents already issued, collateral that already exists, flows that are already contracted. That is where we are building, and it is the opposite of what most promoters will tell you.
Tokenization does not make an asset real. It makes a real asset easier to move — and only after somebody has proved it is real.
The constraint nobody mentions
A token promises transfer without permission. A mining code requires permission for every change of control. Those two statements cannot both be true of the same instrument.
Under Romanian mining law, the transfer of rights and obligations under a license requires the prior written approval of the national authority, and a transfer made without it is void — not penalized, void. Several other jurisdictions go further and capture indirect transfers as well, meaning a change in the shareholding of the license-holding company triggers the same requirement. Issue a freely tradable token over that equity and the first secondary trade can invalidate the very title the token was supposed to represent.
What the record shows
We went looking for the evidence rather than the promise. Four findings shaped everything above, and we would rather a counterparty heard them from us than discovered them afterwards.
01 — The market
Headline figures for tokenized commodities collapse once a single outsized claim is removed, and what remains is overwhelmingly gold. Tokenized industrial metals are a rounding error inside that number — low single-digit percent of a category that is itself small.
02 — The savings
A European Central Bank study of well over a hundred tokenized bond issues found no demonstrated reduction in operating cost. The only measurable benefit was a few basis points on the funding spread. The efficiency argument, as usually made, is not supported.
03 — The liquidity
Across the sector, large declared capitalizations coexist with negligible daily volume, and a significant share of tokenized value has never moved at all. Several sizeable products are held at a single address. A token you cannot sell is not liquidity, it is a longer wait.
04 — The infrastructure
The trade-finance platforms that survived did so by dropping the token and solving legal finality of title instead — through electronic transferable records law, not a chain. Several major bank consortia in this space closed within eighteen months of each other.
Sources are public: central-bank and multilateral research, exchange and issuer disclosures, and the filings of the companies concerned. We do not name individual issuers on this page; we will discuss the specific cases, with references, with a counterparty who is considering a structure.
What we build, and in what order
Each of these rests on something that already exists. Nothing here depends on a resource estimate, a future production profile, or a retail market that has to be created first.
A tamper-evident, time-stamped record of assay certificates, sampling reports, inspections and compliance documents, anchored so that a third party can verify that a document existed, unchanged, on a given date. It is not a token, not a security and not an offering — and it proves integrity and date, not truth. It makes demonstrable the service the group already sells.
On transactions we have already verified, where a counterparty has a genuine banking problem rather than a preference. The honest reason this exists is correspondent-banking friction, not efficiency — and accepting a digital settlement must never become the reason we accept a counterparty we would otherwise refuse.
Short-dated debt financing a physical trade that is already under contract, in a bankruptcy-remote vehicle, secured on the goods and the receivable, placed only with qualified investors under the applicable private-placement exemptions, with a registered transfer agent. It touches no mining title, and its term is short enough that it does not need a secondary market to work.
One token per identified lot of material under independent custody, with inspection and telemetry. Its realistic use is as bilateral collateral between two known parties, not as a retail product — and it only transfers possession where the local law of warehouse receipts, or an electronic transferable records regime, says it does.
The one model with a demonstrated record. It requires metal the group actually owns, a supervised custodian, allocated holdings identified bar by bar, and periodic proof of reserve with independent legal verification that nothing is pledged twice. It waits for the balance sheet.
The royalty stays exactly where it is, inside its vehicle; what moves is the distribution. It is the only structure in this sector with a working precedent, and it is the model we would follow — in the size range below where the established royalty houses look.
The instrument we are building first
This is the structure we are asked about most, and the one whose economics we can defend line by line. It exists to finance a physical trade that is already under contract, for the weeks between the producer wanting to be paid and the buyer's payment arriving. Nothing about it depends on a deposit, a resource estimate or a market that has to be created.
What it finances
A specific lot of material, under a signed sale contract with a verified buyer, with the assay, the weight, the loading point and the delivery terms already fixed. Not a pipeline, not a forecast: one cargo, one contract, one file.
Where the return comes from
The difference between what the buyer has contracted to pay and what the producer is paid, less our costs. It is defined by documents that exist before the note is issued. It is not guaranteed: if the buyer defaults, the return does not arrive — which is why the security below exists.
How long
The life of one trade: from the producer's delivery to the buyer's payment against documents. The term is short enough that the note does not need a secondary market to work, and we do not promise one.
What secures it
A first-ranking pledge over the material while it is in transit or in store, and an assignment of the buyer's payment obligation, held in a dedicated bankruptcy-remote vehicle that owns nothing else. If the buyer does not pay, the material is sold to another; the note-holder does not carry the group's other risks.
Who can hold it
Offered privately, under the applicable exemptions, to investors who meet the eligibility tests of their jurisdiction — and to nobody else. Transfers are restricted to the same class. This is a security and is treated as one.
Who keeps the books
The holder register is kept by a transfer agent registered for the purpose; the material is held by a custodian who is not us; assay and inspection are by accredited third parties. The token, where one is used, is the record of the holder's entitlement — it is not the entitlement itself, which lives in the legal documents.
A note of this kind is not a stablecoin and we will not call it one. A stablecoin, in the jurisdictions that define the term, is an instrument that carries no yield; the moment an instrument pays a return it is a debt security, and it is regulated as one. Naming it otherwise would mislead the holder and invite exactly the regulatory attention it does not deserve.
The one we are asked for and do not offer
Nearly every conversation about mineral tokenization arrives, sooner or later, at the same request: a token that raises money to invest in mines and projects, pays a return, and rises in value as the portfolio performs — a share, in other words, on a ledger. We understand why it is attractive. We do not offer it, for three reasons we would rather state than have discovered.
It is equity in a license holder. A freely transferable instrument whose value tracks a company holding mining titles triggers the change-of-control rules of the mining codes it sits under, and in several of them an unapproved transfer is void. The market has already run it. Tokens on future production and on resources in the ground have consistently ended by being unwound or replaced with a token on metal in a vault. And it does not solve the problem it claims to. The shortage in exploration and development is not market infrastructure — the venture exchanges already fractionalize junior mining equity with full disclosure and struggle for demand — it is appetite for binary risk, and a token does not change that.
Where a portfolio structure is genuinely wanted, the honest vehicle is a regulated fund or a listed company, with the disclosure and the governance those carry. That is a conversation for counsel, not for a website.
Policy
This list is not marketing. It is the standing policy of the group, and it is published so that a counterparty can hold us to it.
Who does what
A dedicated affiliate in the United States supplies the issuance technology, the holder register and the transfer controls. It provides technology and services and does not itself offer securities — which means the regulatory responsibility for any instrument sits with the issuer, and we say so rather than implying otherwise.
Everything that decides whether the instrument is worth anything is ours: the title search, the sampling, the assay, the inspection, the custody, the counterparty file. Nobody can subcontract that half, and it is the half on which credibility is won or lost.
Where a group company and that affiliate share an address or ownership, we disclose the relationship. We do not present a related party as an independent one.
Important. In most jurisdictions a token representing equity, a share of revenue, a royalty, a debt claim or any expectation of profit from the efforts of others is a security, and may only be offered or sold under an applicable registration or exemption, through permitted channels, to persons eligible to receive it. Securities regulators have made clear that securities remain securities however they are represented, and no general exemption for tokenized instruments is in force. Nothing on this page is an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security, token or interest, in any jurisdiction; nothing here is investment, legal, tax or financial advice; no instrument is currently being offered; and no regulator has approved, endorsed or reviewed any structure described here. Any future offering would be made only through its own formal documentation, under the law applicable to it. Digital assets carry risks — including total loss of the amount committed — additional to the mining and commodity risks described elsewhere on this site.
If somebody has offered you one
If you have been offered a token over a mineral asset — as an investor, a producer or an intermediary — the useful questions are: what exactly does the holder own, who holds the underlying, what happens at redemption, and which regulator would have jurisdiction if it failed. We will read the documents and answer those four in writing, whether or not there is any business in it for us.