Force majeure risk in gold and silver makes ETF ownership unreliable, not physical ownership. The crypto notion of if you do not hold your keys you do not own your coins applies to metals as well.
US equities are valued at roughly $69 trillion, gold at $35 trillion, silver at $4.3 trillion, and all of crypto at $2.4 trillion. The vast majority of institutional gold and silver exposure sits in ETFs, not in vaults the fund actually controls. In a financial crisis or dollar devaluation our research suggests there will not be enough physical silver to cover futures delivery obligations. A futures force majeure will put SLV in a position where it cannot honor share redemptions, and confidence in metals ETFs broadly will be undermined. It is also unclear how the United States or the Federal Reserve would act in such a scenario. What is clear is that crypto will still function as crypto if metals ETF confidence breaks down.
During COVID, the spread between physical gold in London and gold futures in New York blew out to $80 an ounce. Refineries shut down, flights stopped, and banks could not deliver the metal they owed. A force majeure was openly discussed. That was gold. Silver faces the same structural risk today but worse. Exchange inventories have dropped 38% since October 2025, China has restricted exports on roughly 65% of the world’s refined supply, and margin requirements have been hiked to suppress delivery demand.
As far as crypto it is imprudent to just focus on Bitcoin and Ethereum. There is no logical reason to think the top two coins by market cap should outperform the next ninety eight by market cap and an overallocation to lesser known altcoins makes sense. Bitcoin is too widely owned with saturated derivatives markets suppressing real price discovery. Ethereum may lack the beta needed to offset hard asset positions. Crypto ETFs and futures do not offer direct custody. Holding altcoins directly does, with instant settlement and no counterparty risk.
