Three central banks tested ways to settle foreign exchange across different systems. Their findings sharpen a question that matters for gold-backed finance: what can a counterparty actually claim when it needs the collateral?
By Elías Alejandro Saleme · Riviera del Plata
On 13 November 2026, the Bank of England, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Bank of Thailand published the results of Project Meridian FX APAC. In test environments, they coordinated payment-versus-payment across traditional real-time gross settlement systems and platforms built on distributed ledgers. They also tested multilateral netting, which offsets payments among participants and can reduce how much cash they need to settle them.
The project tested foreign exchange settlement, not gold or a live cross-border service. Its policy report makes an important distinction: coordinating settlement technically does not, by itself, establish when settlement is legally final in each jurisdiction.
What does the holder actually own?
In a separate consultation on tokenised collateral, the Bank of England applies a similar distinction to gold. Section 3.6 discusses whether tokenised gold can meet the criteria for acceptance by UK central counterparties. The structure matters: if the token loses its link to specific allocated bullion, it may no longer satisfy the relevant eligibility criteria for gold. The consultation is not a blanket approval for gold-backed tokens.
The London Bullion Market Association illustrates why that link matters. An allocated account is tied to identified bars. An unallocated account represents a claim on the account provider rather than a right to particular bars. A digital record can represent either; the record alone cannot tell you which rights are enforceable.
How we approach it at Riviera del Plata
When a project calls for gold-backed collateral from a third party, we start by structuring the transaction and its documentation. Who owns the asset and who can pledge it? Can the custodian identify the bars and verify that they are free of conflicting claims? How is the collateral valued, under what terms is it accepted, and can the counterparty access or enforce it under stress?
That work brings the asset, the custody arrangement and the contract into the same picture. It does not imply that RDP owns the bullion, lends against it or guarantees a financing outcome. The institutions involved decide whether a specific structure meets their requirements.
Why it matters beyond the gold market
More reliable settlement could reduce the time and liquidity that institutions tie up in cross-border transactions. That would matter to businesses whose suppliers, buyers and banks sit in different markets. But the gain depends on what happens when an institution fails, a price moves sharply or a claim is contested. The test for digital collateral is not how fast it moves on a normal day. It is whether the party relying on it can exercise its rights on a bad one.
Editorial analysis for general information. Not investment advice or an offer of financing.