On Friday, January 30, Mario Innecco, also commonly known as Maneco64, interviewed Stefan Gleason, https://share.google/Uq1JLe7nUG8AKuAsH" target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>President & CEO of Money Metals Exchange, as gold and silver whipped around after fresh all-time highs.
Innecco framed the action as historic. Gold and silver had been “all over the place,” with prices “testing https://www.moneymetals.com/gold-price">$5,000 and https://www.moneymetals.com/silver-price">$100, respectively.”
Gleason said the popular explanation was that President Trump’s pick for Fed chair triggered the correction. He wasn’t convinced. He described the pullback as a normal cool-off after an almost parabolic run, especially in silver.
Warsh And The Fed
After the market moves, the interview shifts to the political storyline traders were using to explain the drop. This section focuses on Kevin Warsh, quantitative easing, and why Gleason doubts any real tightening is coming.
Gleason said he has met Kevin Warsh and described him as smart, but also entrenched in the Fed system, and https://share.google/hWCvkMXDwtbDMKzin" target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>tied to the post-2008 playbook. Gleason claimed Warsh was “one of the architects” of quantitative easing in 2008, shaping his expectation that any “tighter Fed” storyline won’t survive reality.
His argument was straightforward. The debt burden is too large, and when “push comes to shove,” the system returns to printing and balance sheet expansion. Innecco reinforced the point by recalling early QE-era assurances that it would be limited, contrasting that with today’s still-massive balance sheet, which he cited at around $7 trillion.
Gold Market Whispers
From Fed politics, the discussion narrows to a telling personal anecdote that hints at deeper market dynamics. This section recounts Gleason’s public question about government activity in the gold market and the response he found revealing.
Gleason recounted questioning Warsh at a COMEX gold dinner in New York City roughly eight years ago. He said there were about 1,000 people in the room when he asked whether the U.S. government is involved in the gold market, and if so, what the purpose of those transactions might be.
Gleason said Warsh “danced around” the question, downplayed the scale with “not as much as you would expect,” then pivoted to the importance of maintaining a strong dollar and the role of the International Monetary Fund in currency markets. Gleason interpreted the response as a tacit yes, paired with an attempt to minimize how much it mattered.
Sound Money Now
With the macro backdrop established, the interview turns toward what people can do personally instead of waiting on institutions. This section covers the “personal gold standard” idea and the policy push happening at the state level.
Gleason argued that people don’t have to wait for central banks or politicians to “fix” anything. His view is that individuals can adopt a personal gold standard by holding physical gold and silver now, and he said those who did so over the last two or three years have been rewarded.
He also described policy momentum through work with https://www.moneymetals.com/authors/jp-cortez">Jp Cortez and the https://www.soundmoneydefense.org/" target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Sound Money Defense League. He cited state-level pushes to reduce taxes on precious metals, encourage states to hold gold reserves, and roll back regulations that burden local dealers.
He also warned against certain proposals that would expand state involvement through public-private partnerships or favored depository or payment schemes. Gleason’s view was that government should not be placed back in the middle of people’s gold.
Legal Tender History
To explain why today’s debates matter, the interview steps back into history and first principles. This section outlines how Gleason frames money, legal tender, and the shift from metal-based definitions to force-backed paper.
The interview leaned into monetary history. Gleason argued that https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2025/04/01/the-coinage-act-of-1792-then-and-now-003952">under the U.S. Constitution and the Coinage Act of 1792, the government’s role was supposed to be limited to standardizing weights and measures, not manipulating money’s value or building a paper-credit machinery.
He pointed to legal tender laws during the Civil War as a turning point, saying they were used to force acceptance of unbacked paper money that would not have circulated as money on its own. In his telling, legal tender is the tool that tries to make “not-money” behave like money.
Audit The Gold
From historical principles, the conversation returns to a modern flashpoint: trust in official gold reserves. This section covers https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2025/06/06/members-of-congress-introduce-comprehensive-us-gold-audit-legislation-004107">the call to audit U.S. gold and the political names tied to that effort.
Gleason said the U.S. gold reserves have not had a credible audit “for decades,” and raised the possibility of https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2025/02/21/open-letter-to-president-donald-j-trump-dont-be-fooled-by-the-fort-knox-auditors-003856">undisclosed encumbrances such as pledges, leases, or swaps. He mentioned working on https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3795/text" target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>an audit-the-gold bill with Mike Lee and Thomas Massie.
Innecco pressed with skepticism about Fort Knox, joking that nobody knows what’s in there. Gleason used that as a contrast point for private-sector custody and accountability.
Vault Scale
Once trust and verification are on the table, the interview moves into how private storage compares to government storage. This section summarizes Gleason’s claims about vault capacity, security controls, and segregated ownership.
Gleason said https://www.moneymetals.com/silver-gold-storage">Money Metals Depository built a Class 3 facility with four vaults totaling about 9,000 square feet, compared to Fort Knox at 4,000 square feet. He said the only larger vault he cited was the New York Fed.
He described segregated storage, sealed containers, RFID tracking, internal and external audits, cameras, dual controls, background checks, and layered physical and electronic security. He emphasized that the metal is client property held in custody, not on the company’s balance sheet.
Refinery Bottlenecks
From storage, the discussion shifts to the market plumbing that determines whether metal can actually move through the system. This section explains why refineries and turnaround times are becoming a critical constraint, especially for silver.
Gleason said the industry is under severe strain, with refineries in some cases not accepting silver, quoting lead times of 12 weeks or 18 weeks, and even delayed payment terms. He said two major U.S. refineries sent notices that week saying they weren’t accepting anything for three weeks because they were overwhelmed. When they reopened, he said, advances would stop.
He explained why that matters. Local coin shops and scrap buyers often have more metal coming in than going out, so they rely on fast refinery turnaround and advance payments to keep buying. If refiners won’t take metal or won’t advance funds, bids collapse or disappear.
Gleason said Money Metals is feeling the stress, too. He described manual authentication and quality control as unavoidable when the public ships in metal. He also claimed Money Metals hired 65 people since Christmas and still needs another 40 or 50 just to keep up with volume.
China’s Silver Grip
With refinery stress established, the interview zooms out to the global bottleneck that may be making the squeeze worse. This section focuses on China’s share of silver refining capacity and how regional premiums can redirect supply.
Gleason said 60% to 65% of the https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2026/01/08/china-is-weaponizing-silver-using-export-restrictions-004596">world’s silver refining capacity is in China. He also noted a premium on silver inside China, arguing that it pulls silver in and reduces the incentive to export refined metal back out.
He added that premiums in London and Asia have been visible, and described shipping pallets of silver to India when the premium made the transaction work. His point was that tightness is measurable, and premiums can act like a warning flare before shortages show up in retail availability.
Shipping And Insurance
After the big-picture supply chain discussion, the interview turns practical for everyday sellers and buyers. This section covers the mechanics of https://www.moneymetals.com/sell-to-us">shipping metals safely to Money Metals, or elsewhere, and what Gleason says it can cost to insure larger values.
For sellers who do ship their precious metal items to Money Metals, Gleason recommended registered mail through https://www.usps.com/ship/insurance-extra-services.htm">the United States Postal Service (USPS) because it allows insuring precious metals. He said UPS and FedEx generally do not offer insurance for gold and silver.
He cited a rough example: shipping up to $50,000 of value could cost around $10 to $20 for postage, plus about $70 to $80 for insurance. He also stressed careful packing, including double-boxing heavy items and sealing seams properly.
Loans Against Metals
From logistics, the conversation pivots to liquidity and how holders can tap value without selling. This section explains the https://www.moneymetals.com/gold-loan">depository-secured line of credit at Money Metals that Gleason described and why it appeals in a rising market.
Gleason described a Money Metals business-purpose line of credit secured by a client’s own gold or silver held in segregated depository storage. He framed it as a way to access liquidity without selling and potentially triggering a capital gains tax event.
He said the rate is in the 9% annualized range, tied to prime plus a margin, and emphasized that they are not lending out customer gold. The borrower is simply using their own stored metal as collateral for cash.
Silver’s New Phase
To close the loop, the interview returns to price behavior and why silver may be acting differently this cycle. This section summarizes the “new reality” framing, the demand feedback loop, and why supply may not respond quickly.
Gleason referenced https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2026/01/17/silver-to-500-michael-olivers-breakout-warning-004620">analyst Michael Oliver’s “new reality” framing for silver and said the move felt driven by real physical tightness and shifting psychology. He also invoked the idea of a Giffen good, describing a dynamic where demand can rise alongside price as buyers switch from gold to silver and then chase silver higher as it breaks into new levels.
He extended the idea to industry, too, saying manufacturers may increase inventory from weeks to months if they fear shortages. He argued that supply can’t respond quickly because so much silver is a byproduct of other mining and because mining lead times are long.
The Takeaway
In the final stretch, the themes converge into a single message about momentum and market structure. This section ties together the Fed backdrop, transparency questions, and the physical-market constraints that Gleason says are already tightening.
Innecco’s questions kept the conversation grounded in the mechanics behind the spikes: Fed politics, gold transparency, vaulting, refinery bottlenecks, and the way premiums can reveal stress before the public sees it.
Gleason’s core point wasn’t panic. It was momentum.
The physical market is already straining at low participation rates. If ownership expands meaningfully from today’s small slice of the public, the upside pressure on availability and premiums could intensify.
Follow Maneco64 on https://x.com/maneco1964">his YouTube or on X (formerly Twitter) https://x.com/maneco1964">@maneco64.
