These “experts” keep pointing to that NatGold link like it somehow validates AABB. It actually does the opposite. I’m not sure they even read it.
First off, that link isn’t a technical report, it’s a marketing pre-registration page run by Angel Publishing, a newsletter promo outfit. It’s designed to collect emails and sell subscriptions, not to verify gold.
There’s no NI 43-101 report, no JORC table, no S-K 1300 summary, no concession data, and no lab or audit attachments. Just hype language about “verified, geologically proven” gold, with zero evidence behind it.
Calling that a “source” is like citing an infomercial as a geological audit. “You’re gonna love my nuts!”
And the argument they’re pushing, that you can sell or tokenize gold still in the ground, isn’t validation, it’s the problem. You can’t legally or accounting-wise back a token with unmined gold. Under GAAP and IFRS, it isn’t bullion; it’s an intangible mineral right, not deliverable metal. Even NI 43-101 or JORC classifications are geological estimates, not ounces anyone owns.
NatGold at least claims to use those standards. AABB doesn’t even go that far:
• No NI 43-101 reports
• No JORC data
• No independent audit of any claimed “backing” bullion
So even if someone believes in “in-ground tokenization,” AABB never met the minimum verification required to make it legitimate.
That’s not opinion, it’s accounting reality, confirmed by every filing to date.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
