What the SILVER Act Could Mean for Gold and Silver Markets

Key Takeaways

• While precious metals trading has gone digital, the physical storage and delivery system for regulated US futures contracts remains geographically concentrated around the New York metropolitan area.
• The proposed bipartisan SILVER Act would require the CFTC to ensure a more resilient and diversified storage network by establishing at least two approved depositories across each of the four continental US time zones.  
• By dispersing physical storage away from a single geographic corridor, the bill aims to eliminate a single point of failure and protect the market from regional cyberattacks, natural disasters, or transportation disruptions. 
• The legislation is a restructuring of market “plumbing”—logistics, competition, and costs—rather than a price catalyst. 

For markets centered on some of humanity’s oldest stores of value, the physical and logistical infrastructure supporting precious metals markets is surprisingly antiquated. Investors can monitor spot prices in real time, trade futures electronically around the clock, and buy fractional ownership through digital platforms. Yet the physical system governing delivery for regulated US precious metals contracts remains geographically concentrated in a way that reflects the financial world of the 1970s rather than today’s digital economy. A new bipartisan proposal in Congress, the SILVER Act, aims to change that.

Introduced in the House in March 2026 and in the Senate last month, the System Integrity through Licensed Vault Expansion and Resilience (SILVER) Act seeks to modernize the nation’s exchange-approved precious metals storage network. At present, metal delivered against regulated futures contracts for gold, silver, platinum, and palladium generally comes from a small number of officially approved vaults clustered around the New York metropolitan area. That arrangement made sense decades ago, when trading floors, clearinghouses, and settlement operations all benefited from geographic proximity. Today, though, electronic trading has largely erased the original rationale for concentrating physical storage in one region. The infrastructure remained even as markets evolved.

The legislation would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to pursue a more geographically diversified storage system by ensuring at least two approved depositories in each of the four continental US time zones. In practical terms, this could open the door for qualified vault operators in places such as Texas, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, or Utah to become eligible for exchange-approved storage and delivery.

The bill matters not because it would directly affect metal prices, but because it would restructure the market’s “plumbing.” Three issues are central: resiliency, cost, and logistics.

Resiliency and Reducing Single-Point Vulnerabilities

Today, a large share of the regulated US precious metals delivery system depends heavily on one geographic corridor centered around New York. Critics argue that such concentration creates a single point of failure. A regional cyberattack, transportation disruption, natural disaster, prolonged power outage, or other infrastructure shock could interfere with settlement and storage for futures-linked precious metals markets nationwide. Supporters of the SILVER Act view geographic diversification as a basic resilience measure – similar to the way in which financial institutions increasingly disperse data centers and operational hubs to reduce single-point or systemic vulnerabilities.

These are not merely hypothetical concerns. During congressional hearings in early 2026, lawmakers and regulators discussed whether concentrating key financial infrastructure in a single region remains prudent in an era of rising cyber risks and geopolitical uncertainty. The current system has functioned effectively for decades, and one might reasonably argue that fears may be overstated. Yet diversification is a familiar principle in financial markets, and proponents contend there is little reason precious metals storage should remain unnecessarily centralized.

Lowering Costs Through Enhanced Competition

Competition and cost are factors as well. Because only a limited number of depositories currently qualify for exchange delivery, supporters of the bill argue that competition is constrained. If additional approved vaults emerge around the country, investors could eventually benefit from more competitive pricing, lower fees, and expanded service options.

This matters especially for investors who hold physical metal through professional custodians: allocated gold and silver programs, self-directed IRAs, institutional vaulting services, or exchange-linked delivery systems. More competition could place downward pressure on storage and insurance costs over time. By contrast, individuals who simply buy coins or bars for personal possession are unlikely to notice any immediate difference.

But lower costs are only possible, not guaranteed. Any new depositories would still need to satisfy strict regulatory standards, obtain exchange approval, and establish credibility. Implementation would likely unfold gradually, so any benefits could take years to materialize.

Aligning Logistics with Production Realities

Additionally, much of America’s gold and silver production occurs in the western United States: particularly Nevada, Idaho, and Alaska. Yet metal destined for regulated futures delivery often moves through the Northeast. That mismatch increases transportation costs and operational complexity between mining, assaying, refining, minting (or casting), vaulting, and final delivery.

By allowing approved storage facilities closer to mining and refining centers, the SILVER Act could make physical metals markets more logistically efficient. Fewer unnecessary bottlenecks may reduce costs and improve delivery flexibility, particularly during periods of market stress.

Importantly, gold and silver market participants should understand what the bill would not change. The SILVER Act is not a precious metals price catalyst. It would not alter mine output, jewelry demand, industrial silver consumption, central-bank gold purchases, inflation expectations, or Federal Reserve policy – the factors that historically drive long-run gold and silver prices. Gold would remain primarily a monetary hedge, a store of value, and protection against institutional uncertainty; silver would continue occupying its unusual dual role as both precious metal and industrial input.

What the legislation would change, if enacted and implemented, is the overall market infrastructure. A broader network of exchange-approved vaults could make physical settlement more resilient, improve competition among custodians, and align storage more closely with modern production realities.

Conclusion

The bill must still survive committee review, congressional negotiations, and regulatory implementation. But the debate itself is of great note. For decades, only a scant few advocates of precious metals questioned whether a global and increasingly digital precious metals market should still depend so heavily on a 1960s-vintage storage system built around a single US metropolitan area. 

That the United States Congress appears willing to revisit that assumption alone makes the SILVER Act worth watching.

 

About the author: Peter C. Earle, Ph.D, is the Director of Economics and Economic Freedom and is Head of Reseach who joined AIER in 2018. He holds a Ph.D in Economics from l’Universite d’Angers, an MA in Applied Economics from American University, an MBA (Finance), and a BS in Engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point.

Prior to joining AIER, Dr. Earle spent over 20 years as a trader and analyst at a number of securities firms and hedge funds in the New York metropolitan area as well as engaging in extensive consulting within the cryptocurrency and gaming sectors. His research focuses on financial markets, monetary policy, macroeconomic forecasting, and problems in economic measurement. He has been quoted by the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Barron’s, Bloomberg, Reuters, CNBC, Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, NPR, and in numerous other media outlets and publications.

 

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed by the author are the author’s opinions and do not reflect the opinions of Goldco. The author’s opinions are based on the author’s personal experience, education and information the author considers reliable. Goldco does not warrant that the information contained herein is complete or accurate, and it should not be relied upon as such.