Gold price

After hitting a record high of close to US$5,600 per ounce, gold closed out January by embarking on one of the biggest price slides it’s seen in decades. By early morning trading on Monday (February 2), the yellow metal had dropped as low as US$4,400 for a significant loss of more than 21 percent.

However, gold regained much of that lost ground by Tuesday’s (February 3) close, trading back above US$4,935. By Wednesday (February 4) morning, gold was once again back above the key psychological US$5,000 mark, although it couldn’t maintain that level for long and slipped back down into the US$4,900 range.

Gold price chart, January 28, 2025, to February 4, 2026.

The primary drivers for gold this past week are:

Silver price

The silver price has tracked gold on these macro trends. The white metal fell from the all-time high of more than US$120 per ounce that it reached on January 29 to a low of about US$71 on Monday.

Silver price chart, January 28, 2025, to February 4, 2026.

Although silver lost 35 percent from its peak in such a short time, the precious metal has rebounded to an intraday high of US$92.32 as its fundamentals remain strong.

Platinum price

Platinum tracked its precious metal sisters down from a January 29 high of US$2,816 per ounce to as low as US$1,882. By Tuesday, the metal was back above US$2,200 and has traded mostly around that price mark for Wednesday.

Platinum price chart, January 28, 2025, to February 4, 2026.

Platinum is one of the top-performing metals over the past year, reaching 12 year highs in recent weeks. Demand is being driven by the metal’s essential role in the emerging hydrogen economy. Its also still seeing robust demand from the auto sector despite the emergence of electric vehicles and uneasy consumer confidence in the economy.

On the supply side, global platinum reserves remain critically low, especially as the world’s biggest producer, South Africa, continues to be plagued by power shortages and operational disruptions.

Palladium price

Palladium has been the black sheep of the precious metals family for the past few years, remaining well below its March 2022 all-time record of US$3,440.76 per ounce.

On January 29, palladium got in on the party and rallied to an intraday high of US$2,172.50.

Then on Monday it came along for the slide, falling as low as US$1,529. After a slight rebound on Tuesday, the precious metal has traded around US$1,700 to US$1,800.

Palladium price chart, January 28, 2025, to February 4, 2026.

The palladium price is being held down by a slump in demand for electric vehicles and a looming oversupply situation. Analysts at Heraeus and Metals Focus predict the palladium market may move into a surplus in 2026 as secondary supply from recycling increases by 10 percent.

Agreement terms and immediate impact

Under the terms of the agreement, VersaBank will hold and safeguard the reserve assets backing QCAD through the Ontario-based QCAD Digital Trust, which will manage those reserves on behalf of QCAD holders.

The company will provide safekeeping and custodial services using its VersaVault technology, which it describes as a highly secure solution with Systems and Organization Controls 2 certification that has been designed specifically for digital asset custody. Put simply, VersaVault will become the vault, while the QCAD Digital Trust and Stablecorp will remain responsible for governance, issuance and compliance.

For VersaBank, the arrangement creates a new revenue stream, allowing it to earn custody fees based on the value of QCAD assets held, along with a spread on QCAD‑related deposits. That income will be added to its net interest income on cash and securities rather than its lending‑related margin.

For Stablecorp, the main takeaway is the regulatory optics: QCAD is already marketed as Canada’s first regulatory‑compliant, Canadian-dollar‑pegged stablecoin, and now its reserves will be held by a federally regulated Schedule I bank rather than a crypto‑native custodian.

Strategic and market implications

Stablecorp markets QCAD as a compliant, bank-grade Canadian dollar rail for cross-border payments, DeFi and institutional trading. The VersaBank deal reinforces that narrative by naming a Schedule I bank at the center of its reserve‑holding stack. From an investor standpoint, the deal makes it easier for institutions and regulated counterparties to see QCAD as a “safe” Canadian-dollar‑denominated instrument, rather than solely a crypto‑native token.

Additionally, regulators and policymakers should see a Canadian dollar stablecoin that is both technically robust and institutionally anchored, which could help shape future rules around CAD‑pegged tokens.

Stablecorp’s investor base already includes heavy hitters such as Coinbase Global (NASDAQ:COIN), Circle (NYSE:CRCL), DeFi Technologies (NASDAQ:DEFT) and FTP Ventures.

The VersaBank partnership adds another layer of credibility that could help Stablecorp attract more traditional financial services capital as Canada’s broader stablecoin and digital asset regulatory framework evolves.

The QCAD mandate represents a symbolically important strategic and balance sheet development, distinct from its core lending activities, offering long-term growth potential. By classifying QCAD-related net interest income within its cash and securities category, VersaBank signals that this activity is capital light and non-credit related. This approach diversifies revenue without significantly altering the bank’s credit risk profile.

This move may attract investors cautious of banks with high crypto-lending exposure, but comfortable with custody and infrastructure. The QCAD deal validates a broader digital asset custody franchise, especially if VersaVault gains more mandates for Canadian-dollar-pegged or other tokenized assets and stablecoins.

Broader implications for Canadian investors

The VersaBank-Stablecorp partnership is significant for Canada-focused investors as it represents a blending of traditional finance and crypto-native infrastructure. Stablecoins such as QCAD act as programmable Canadian dollars. The involvement of a Schedule I bank as custodian enhances the prospect of using CAD stablecoins for interbank or institutional settlement, particularly as Canada explores wholesale central bank digital currency technologies.

Furthermore, the arrangement opens the door for new tokenized financial products like money market funds, deposits or treasury management products that will reside on public blockchains, but are securely backed by regulated entities.

From a risk management perspective, investors may want to watch reserve composition disclosures for QCAD, and monitor how quickly QCAD’s circulating supply and VersaBank’s associated fee income scale.

For now, the deal is more of a strategic and signaling move than a near‑term earnings inflection point, but it lays the groundwork for QCAD to become a core Canadian-dollar‑denominated rail in Canada’s digital asset stack.

INN: Is the SEC’s guidance a real step forward for tokenized securities, or simply existing law repackaged for blockchain?

EF: It is mostly existing law applied to new rails, and the SEC staff says that explicitly: the format and whether records are onchain or off-chain does not change the application of federal securities laws, and the statement creates no new obligations or exemptions. The step forward is practical: a clear taxonomy of tokenization models and an invitation to engage on registrations and requests for staff action, which reduces interpretive ambiguity for counsel and compliance teams.

INN: Does formally classifying tokenized securities under federal securities laws accelerate institutional adoption?

EF: It accelerates adoption only to the extent it reduces legal uncertainty. The statement anchors tokenized securities inside familiar categories and emphasizes that compliance pathways already exist, which helps internal risk committees approve pilots. But it does not solve the institutional bottleneck by itself; mainstream adoption still requires scalable market infrastructure and regulated operating models that fit broker-dealer, exchange, custody and settlement expectations.

INN: Who is this guidance really designed for? Crypto-native platforms, traditional financial institutions or regulators preparing for enforcement?

EF: All three, but the clearest primary audience is market participants preparing filings and requests for relief, across both crypto native and traditional firms. The staff frames it as assistance for compliance and for preparing registrations, proposals or requests for appropriate action. At the same time, it signals an enforcement baseline: do not assume tokenization changes the regulatory perimeter, especially for third-party sponsored models that introduce intermediary and bankruptcy risk.

INN: Does the SEC’s tokenization taxonomy provide meaningful structure, or does it leave key operational questions unresolved?

EF: It provides meaningful structure by separating issuer-sponsored tokenized securities from third-party sponsored tokenized securities, then splitting third-party models into custodial tokenized securities and synthetic tokenized securities. Key operational questions remain open because the statement is not a rule and assumes away major frictions like state law transfer validity, and it does not standardize how onchain settlement, custody controls or trading venues should be implemented in practice.

INN: What needs to happen next for tokenized securities to move from experimentation to mainstream financial markets?

EF: First, a credible clearing and settlement pathway at scale. The (Depository Trust Company) no-action relief for its tokenization services pilot is directionally important because it connects tokenized entitlements to core market plumbing.

Second, more formal regulatory outputs: targeted exemptive relief, standard form disclosures for tokenized representations and clear expectations for broker-dealer and exchange-compliant secondary trading of tokenized securities. Third, operational standards that institutions can audit: identity and permissioning controls, wallet and key management, corporate actions processing and insolvency treatment for intermediary-based models, so that tokenization becomes an efficiency upgrade rather than a new risk layer.

A step towards the right direction

“The announcement is a step in the right direction, that direction being minimizing China’s ability to disrupt the US economy and manufacturing/technology base by manipulating both price and supply of critical elements,” Silversteyn said.

However, he noted that it is “not a quick solution” given that many US-backed mining projects remain in early development stages or produce limited commercial volumes.

The initiative also follows earlier, less successful efforts. Last summer, the US withdrew a proposed US$500 million cobalt stockpile tender after failing to attract sufficient compliant supply.

Regardless, mining companies and developers have broadly welcomed the renewed push. American Pacific Mining Chief Executive Warwick Smith said Project Vault underscores the growing strategic importance of domestic copper supply.

“Once again, President Trump and the current administration are shining an important light on the need for more critical metals within the United States,” Smith said, pointing to copper’s role in electrification, transmission infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing.

Trump has also recently met with GM Chief Executive Mary Barra and mining entrepreneur Robert Friedland in a bid to bridge the interests of mineral producers and large industrial consumers.

US targets rare earths security with Project Vault

While Japan pushes deeper into rare earths supply diversification, developments in the US underscore how deeply critical minerals policies are shaping markets on both sides of the Pacific.

On Monday (February 2), the Trump administration rolled out Project Vault, a roughly US$12 billion strategic critical minerals reserve aimed at reducing US dependence on China for rare earths and other essential metals.

The initiative, anchored by a US$10 billion loan from the US Export‑Import Bank and about US$2 billion in private capital, is designed to stockpile strategic materials like rare earths, cobalt and lithium.

The program’s backers say the reserve will function much like America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, offering a buffer against global supply disruptions and insulating manufacturers from price shocks that have plagued markets during recent US-China trade tensions. Analysts say the effort signals an ongoing shift toward industrial policy that treats critical minerals as strategic assets, even as completion details and long‑term execution remain uncertain.

The financial markets responded quickly. Shares of Australian rare earths producer Lynas Rare Earths (ASX:LYC,OTCQX:LYSDY) rallied more than 3 percent on Tuesday (February 3), closing at AU$15.25, reflecting renewed investor interest tied to the policy news and the broader rare earth narrative.

Lynas’ recent movements come against a backdrop of broader gains in non‑Chinese mineral producers, as investors reposition around supply chain security and government policy support.

Rare earths stocks more generally saw upticks in the US market after the country’s critical minerals plan came into focus, with producers like MP Materials (NYSE:MP) and USA Rare Earth (NASDAQ:USAR) gaining on reports of increased government engagement in critical mineral sourcing.