Singapore wants to know more precisely what is actually behind digital value propositions. A new draft law from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires, among other things, full reserve backing, segregated custody, audits, and redemption at par value for regulated stablecoins.
At first glance, this sounds like a blueprint for digital gold: a digitally visible claim backed by a real asset. But it is precisely at this point that the important difference begins.
A stablecoin promises stability in money. Physical gold does not promise stability in Euros or Dollars. It represents a specific amount of metal whose market value fluctuates.
MAS had already established its stablecoin concept in 2023. On September 1, 2026, it published the planned amendments to the Payment Services Act, which are intended to implement the framework into law.
The draft provides for a separate license for stablecoin issuers. Only licensed providers shall be permitted to designate their products as „MAS-regulated stablecoin“. To do so, they must fulfill central protective mechanisms:
Reserves of at least 100 percent of the par value of the tokens in circulation,
segregated trust accounts with permissible custodians,
regular attestations and audits,
redemption at par value within regulatory timeframes,
requirements regarding capital, disclosure, recovery, and orderly wind-down.
Also new is Singapore's cautious opening to the outside. MAS is considering allowing cross-border joint issuances and recognizing individual foreign stablecoins if their home regulation is materially equivalent and the supervisory authorities cooperate.
The rules are not yet final. The consultation runs until October 16, 2026. Further details are to follow later.
The MAS consultation highlights four questions that are important not only for stablecoins:
What backs the digitally displayed value?
Where and how is the backing held in custody?
Who verifies whether it is actually present?
What rights does the customer have in the event of redemption or insolvency?
A modern app does not answer any of these questions by itself. The decisive factor is the legal and economic structure behind the user interface.
| Feature | MAS-regulated Stablecoin | Physical precious metal via Spargold |
|---|---|---|
| Reference unit | Fixed par value in a fiat currency | Unit of weight in gold, silver, or platinum |
| Objective | Stability at par value | Ownership of physical precious metal |
| Backing | Permissible liquid reserve assets | Physical bars |
| Custody | Segregated trust accounts | Fully allocated via Spargold in „The Reserve“ in Singapore |
| Redemption | Redemption at par value | Sale or delivery according to product terms |
| Performance | Intended to remain stable against the reference currency | Fluctuates with the precious metal price |
The difference is not semantic, but economic. Anyone holding a Euro stablecoin fundamentally expects one Euro back. Anyone owning a gram of gold owns a gram of gold – regardless of how many Euros the market is currently paying for it.
Therefore, the term „gold-backed stablecoin“ would be misleading for a classic precious metal savings model, provided no token with a fixed monetary value promise is issued. It mixes two different expectations: price stability in a currency and ownership of a tangible asset.
MAS does not only want to regulate reserves. It also protects the designation. „MAS-regulated“ should only be allowed to appear where a corresponding license and supervision actually exist.
This is an important signal for the entire digital asset industry: product names may no longer promise more than the legal structure can deliver.
For precious metal savings, this means: instead of technical buzzwords, providers should specifically explain:
whether customers acquire ownership or merely a contractual claim,
whether the metal is physically present and allocated to individual customers,
where it is stored and who the custodian is,
how holdings are audited and insured,
how sale and physical delivery work.
Full reserve backing sounds clear, but it does not automatically solve every problem. Even a regulated stablecoin remains dependent on the quality and liquidity of its reserve assets, its banks, its IT, its risk management, and the effectiveness of supervision.
Conversely, physical gold is also not risk-free. The market price can fall. In addition, there are custody, settlement, legal, and counterparty risks, which can be limited through ownership allocation, independent audits, insurance, and clear contractual rules.
The right question is therefore not: is analog or digital safer? It is: is the structure behind the product transparent?
Spargold combines digital access via app with physical precious metal ownership. According to the published product information, the bars are held in „The Reserve“ in Singapore, fully allocated, insured, and audited. Entry is possible from five Euros.
Thus, Spargold is not a stablecoin. There is no promise that a gold position will have the same Euro value tomorrow as it does today. Instead, customers acquire shares in physically existing precious metal.
This is precisely what should be at the center of communication: not artificial price stability, but a clearly described tangible asset; no equating with digital money, but digitally accessible physical ownership.
Singapore's new stablecoin rules provide a useful benchmark for this. Trust is not created by a label. It is created when backing, custody, auditing, and rights are explained in a verifiable manner.
Stay farsighted.
Yours, Helge Peter Ippensen
