There is a slightly absurd quality to the phrase “tokenised gold”. We have spent years telling investors that gold’s appeal lies in its physical existence. Now we are proposing to put it on a screen, divide it into digital units and move it around the world without anyone touching an ounce.
I think that could be one of the most consequential developments in gold’s investment history.
It also leads to a question that will make some readers roll their eyes: could it help take gold to $20,000 an ounce?
Yes, it could. I am not attaching a date to that figure, and tokenisation alone would not get us there. But dismissing the possibility because today’s price is much lower misses what might change about gold’s role in a digital financial system.
An old asset with a new address
Tokenisation is straightforward in principle. Gold sits in a vault; a digital token represents an interest in it. That token can potentially be bought in small amounts, transferred between parties or used within financial systems without physically moving the metal.
The World Gold Council reported that the market value of tokenised gold passed $4 billion in 2025. In March 2026, it announced plans for shared infrastructure to connect physical custody with digital products, including processes for reconciliation and redemption. This is still an emerging market, but the industry is working on the machinery needed to expand it.
It is tempting to stop there and declare that easier access means a higher gold price. That would be too simple.
If an investor sells a gold ETF and buys an equivalent holding of tokenised gold, gold has acquired a new wrapper. It has not necessarily acquired a new buyer. If a bank uses a token to move an existing gold position more efficiently, that is useful progress, but it does not automatically create additional demand for metal.
The interesting question is whether tokenisation brings gold into places it could not easily reach before.
Consider an investor who wants a small gold holding that can move between platforms. A business that might accept gold-backed value in settlement. A lender willing to take a verified gold interest as collateral. An institution that wants an asset it can hold and deploy within the same digital infrastructure as its other investments.
Each is a potential new use for gold. None is guaranteed. But together they suggest something larger than a more convenient way to buy bullion.
The difference between access and demand
Gold already has a deep, global market. Nobody needs a blockchain to discover that it exists. The case for tokenisation is that some people and institutions may find gold more useful when ownership can be recorded, transferred and verified within the systems where they already operate.
That could widen the pool of potential holders. It could also change the reasons they hold gold. An asset kept solely as a reserve is one thing; an asset that can also move readily through settlement and collateral systems is another. The World Gold Council has identified these possibilities in its work on digital gold infrastructure.
There is a counterargument, and it deserves attention. If gold becomes easier to transfer and reuse, a given quantity of metal might serve more transactions. Greater utility does not always require greater holdings. Tokenisation could make the market more efficient without producing the surge in physical demand that gold bulls expect.
That is why I would never present $20,000 as the mathematical result of putting gold on a ledger. Tokenisation is a potential route into new pools of capital, not a price formula.
What would $20,000 actually require?
At recent prices, $20,000 represents a several-fold revaluation of gold. That is an extraordinary move. It would require a change in what investors and institutions are willing to pay to hold it, driven by forces far beyond digital convenience.
My case rests on several developments reinforcing each other: broader access through tokenisation; credible new uses for gold in financial infrastructure; sustained concern about debt and the purchasing power of currencies; and a greater willingness to hold gold as a strategic asset.
The physical constraint matters. The World Gold Council estimates that annual mine production adds only around 1.8% to existing above-ground gold stocks. There is a great deal of gold in the world, and existing owners can sell it, so “limited supply” does not mean every new buyer will face an empty shelf. It does mean that a large, lasting rise in the desire to hold gold would have to persuade current owners to part with it at a higher price.
That is how a major revaluation could occur. The price of gold is set where willing buyers meet willing sellers, not by dividing a forecast inflow of money by the number of ounces in existence. Tokenisation could help produce more willing buyers. Economic and monetary conditions would determine how strongly they bid.
The token must earn its trust
There is one condition that cannot be treated as a technical detail: the token holder’s claim on the metal.
Is the gold allocated? Who owns it legally? Who audits it? Can the holder redeem the token for metal, or only sell it for cash? What happens if an issuer, custodian or platform fails? Products described as “gold-backed” can give holders very different rights. The World Gold Council’s definitions explicitly distinguish tokenised products by legal structure and redemption terms.
These questions are central to the investment case. A digital token does not inherit all of physical gold’s qualities merely by referring to an ounce in a vault. The link between token and metal must remain credible when markets are under strain, precisely when many people turn to gold.
If the industry gets that right, I expect tokenisation to become part of gold’s future. Finance will continue to develop digital ways to own and transfer assets. It makes little sense to assume that one of the world’s oldest investment assets must remain outside that development.
Will that take gold to $20,000? I cannot tell you when or even promise that it will happen. I can tell you what would make it plausible: a world in which substantially more people and institutions want exposure to gold, can hold and use it with confidence, and are competing for metal whose supply cannot expand quickly to meet them.
The token might look like a gesture. The demand behind it could be anything but.
About the author: Matthew Jones is a co-founder and Precious Metals Analyst at Britannia Bullion. He writes about gold, wealth preservation and the economic forces shaping investors’ decisions.
