Following the Spring Festival holiday, gold and silver prices demonstrated renewed strength in trading sessions. As of 8:30 PM on February 26, spot London gold reached an intraday high of $5,205.472 per ounce, while spot London silver climbed to a peak of $90.34 per ounce. Although these levels did not surpass previous highs, spot London gold and silver have recorded cumulative gains exceeding 19% and 21% year-to-date, respectively, standing out among major asset classes with persistently high market enthusiasm.
The volatile market conditions at elevated levels have not only fueled a surge in physical gold and silver consumption and investment but have also given rise to a new marketing tactic in live streams: "precious metal price-freeze vouchers." It has been observed that some merchants recently attracted consumers with promotions like "pay a deposit to lock in the price, settle the balance later." However, during a sustained upward trend in precious metals prices, many consumers encountered situations where merchants refused to honor agreements and returned deposits. Behind this "price-locking game," does the benefit truly go to consumers, or is it a consumption trap hiding risks of default?
A new approach termed "precious metal price-freezing" is gaining traction in live streams. As international gold and silver prices experience sharp fluctuations at high levels, domestic demand for physical precious metals continues to heat up. Investigations reveal that a product called "precious metal price-freeze vouchers" has recently become a frequent feature in many merchant live streams, serving as a method to attract viewership and drive sales.
On the evening of February 25, in a live stream hosted by a self-operated jewelry store in Hunan, a host repeatedly promoted "physical silver at 24.5 yuan per gram, with 10,000 grams available, a limited-time opportunity," and listed a special live stream exclusive "price-lock" purchase link for 500 yuan in the stream's shopping cart. The product details described it as a "1000g 9999 pure silver bar order with locked price," with the merchant guaranteeing authenticity, offering verification support, and a promise to compensate triple the amount for fakes.
This price-locking model is not unique. Similar sales methods have appeared on secondary market platforms. Merchants related to the Shuibei market in Shenzhen have launched silver price-lock products in various weights. Consumers can pay a 500 yuan deposit to lock in the current price, with the balance payable later via a separate link. These merchants explicitly state that they do not accept disputes arising from price declines; if a consumer cancels the order, the deposit is non-refundable.
To understand the usage of these vouchers, a purchase was made for the link from the Hunan jewelry store's live stream. The voucher code indicated validity until March 4 and specified in-store use only. Within a minute of the purchase, the merchant proactively called, inquiring about the specific purchase weight and explaining: "This link corresponds to the current price of 24.5 yuan per gram. For a 1000-gram purchase totaling 24,500 yuan, paying for the voucher locks the price. Physical silver will be mailed tomorrow morning, and the final payment is due after shipment."
Regarding the "in-store pickup only" note on the voucher, the merchant further clarified: "We offer mailing services for convenience." They also promised to include quality assurance certificates and the company seal, support nationwide recycling later, or handle recycling directly themselves, repeatedly urging a quick decision on the purchase weight and voucher code verification. When asked if the transaction could be postponed within the voucher's validity period, the merchant refused and requested a refund.
Multiple disputes have emerged where merchants reneged on agreements. Since the beginning of the year, international gold and silver have continued their strong upward trajectory from the previous year, repeatedly setting new historical peaks. In late January, spot London gold and silver reached highs of $5,598.75 and $121.647 per ounce, respectively, both setting record highs before entering a phase of consolidation. Amid the sharp price increases, while some investors chased the rally, others faced disputes related to price-freeze vouchers.
Reports on social platforms indicate that during the period of rapid price appreciation, several consumers encountered merchants refusing to honor locked-price agreements after deposits were paid.
One user shared their experience: in late January, they contacted a local merchant to purchase three 1000-gram silver bars. The merchant requested a 3,000 yuan deposit to lock in the physical silver price of 27.3 yuan per gram at that time. However, just ten minutes after the transfer, the merchant refused to sell, citing "rapid market increases and insufficient physical stock," and refunded the full deposit. The consumer expressed frustration, stating the purpose of a deposit is to bind both parties to price fluctuations, not just the buyer. They questioned whether merchants would voluntarily refund price differences if prices fell, highlighting a perceived lack of fairness.
In a similar case in late January, Mr. Dong from Hebi, Henan province, faced a disappointing situation. According to reports, Mr. Dong purchased a 50-gram gold bar via a live stream when the price was 1,126 yuan per gram, paying a 1,000 yuan deposit to lock the price with an agreement to settle the balance the next day. Overnight, the gold price rose to 1,140 yuan per gram. When Mr. Dong went to collect the item, the merchant claimed it was "out of stock," offering only a refund of the deposit plus an additional 100 yuan compensation.
Mr. Dong rejected this solution, calculating a price difference loss of 700 yuan based on his order. After negotiations, the merchant agreed to refund the 1,000 yuan deposit and compensate Mr. Dong with an additional 500 yuan for the loss.
Wu Zewei, a special researcher, commented that this live stream price-locking model carries significant risks for both consumers and merchants. For consumers, primary risks include merchant unilateral contract breaches, product mismatch, and failure to deliver on time. For merchants, the risk lies in amplified losses during sharp unilateral price movements. Without effective hedging mechanisms, sustained price increases could lead to substantial losses.
Given the known risks, why do merchants actively promote such models? Wu Zewei explained the core motivation is using "low-price locking" as a gimmick to attract traffic and lock in potential customers, treating the vouchers as a customer acquisition tool and short-term marketing tactic. In highly volatile markets, some merchants gamble on prices falling or consumers forgetting to use vouchers, reducing actual fulfillment costs—a strategy driven essentially by speculation.
Wang Deyue, a lawyer, further emphasized that this price-locking model lacks sustainability. Short-term, it relies on stable or mildly fluctuating prices; a unilateral surge triggers widespread fulfillment crises, severely damaging merchant credibility. Long-term, the model faces compliance risks, potentially crossing regulatory boundaries if it involves disguised financial transactions. Once consumer trust is broken, it is hard to rebuild. Additionally, as regulations on live stream marketing and precious metal trades tighten, price-lock models lacking physical backing and risk controls will eventually be phased out.
Maintaining a rational and cautious approach is advised. As gold and silver investment heats up, models like price-freezing and pre-set price transactions are emerging. While both lock in transaction prices, they differ fundamentally.
For instance, the troubled Jieruirui trading platform previously involved pre-set price transactions. It allowed users to pay a deposit locking the day's gold or silver price, requiring balance payment within 15 working days for physical delivery. Failure to pay incurred storage fees; users could also opt for platform buyback at the locked price to profit from spreads.
On February 13, the Shenzhen Local Financial Regulatory Bureau issued a public notice further standardizing gold market practices, explicitly prohibiting non-compliant pre-set price gold transactions, leveraged trades, and deferred settlement activities. This includes operations via WeChat groups, mini-programs, apps, or websites under the guise of gold recycling or pre-set price deals, where customers pay margins to lock prices and settle differences based on price movements without physical delivery.
Wang Deyue pointed out that live stream "price-freeze vouchers" essentially represent physical transactions where prepaid deposits lock real-time prices, with merchants promising delivery at the locked price within validity. The core risk is merchant refusal to honor agreements due to losses from sharp price swings. In contrast, voucher transactions focus on physical delivery, have reasonable deposit ratios, and specify clear pickup deadlines and delivery obligations, essentially a "pre-sale + price-lock" retail model. The Jieruirui model, however, centered on high leverage, downplayed physical delivery, allowed spread settlement, and involved users betting on price directions—constituting unlicensed illegal over-the-counter gambling. The key distinction is that vouchers, while prone to disputes, theoretically fall within physical sales, whereas the Jieruirui model is典型的illegal futures trading.
Wang Deyue added that generally, consumer participation in such voucher transactions is not recommended. The safest way to purchase physical precious metals remains direct full-payment buys. If consumers still choose lock-in models, extreme caution is necessary.
Currently, these voucher models haven't clearly breached compliance thresholds, but if scale expands and defaults concentrate, they could easily attract regulatory scrutiny. Consumers should adhere to the "physical delivery" principle, preferring established brands with physical stores and proper credentials. If engaging in voucher transactions, carefully review terms regarding validity, fulfillment conditions, and refund rules; avoid paying deposits without corresponding physical goods; do not treat vouchers as short-term investments; be wary of "low threshold, high return" claims; avoid leveraged lock-in trades; and report rights infringements to platforms and regulators promptly.
Regarding various live stream marketing tactics amid high price volatility, Wu Zewei advised merchants to establish sound price risk hedging mechanisms, clarify lock-in rules, validity periods, and fulfillment obligations, avoiding overcommitment. Platforms should strictly vet merchant qualifications, implement specific rules and risk disclosures for lock-in products, establish efficient consumer dispute resolution channels, and impose restrictions or removals on merchants with frequent fulfillment issues.