Why silver could top $100 an ounce within weeks. - Getty Images/iStockphoto Trading-exchange operator CME Group made it more expensive in recent weeks for people to trade silver futures contracts. That doesn’t seem to bother investors, who have lifted prices up to their highest levels on record, with many setting their sights on the psychologically important $100-an-ounce mark. CME CME already raised its silver futures contract performance bond requirement, also known as margin, once in January after bu ...

Core Insights - A viral post incorrectly claimed that a major US bank collapsed due to silver trading, but the actual issue stemmed from a margin requirement increase by the CME, leading to significant collateral demands for traders [1][6]. Group 1: Margin Requirements and Impact - The CME raised margin requirements for silver and other metals effective December 29, citing increased volatility, which raised the margin on the March 2026 silver contract by approximately $3,000, from about $22,000 to around $25,000 [3]. - Each silver futures contract controls 5,000 ounces, equating to about $375,000 of exposure backed by a $25,000 deposit, resulting in roughly 15x leverage, making traders vulnerable to price fluctuations [4]. - With around 224,867 open silver contracts, the margin increase translates to an estimated $675 million in additional collateral that traders must provide [4]. Group 2: Market Reactions and Consequences - The forced deleveraging scenario arises as exchanges demand more cash, leading some traders to sell their positions, which further depresses prices and creates additional market stress [5]. - Despite the viral claims of a bank liquidation, there was no official notice from the CME or any regulatory alerts confirming such an event, indicating that the situation did not constitute a major banking crisis [6]. Group 3: Interconnection with Bitcoin - The dynamics between silver and Bitcoin are highlighted, as the same leverage issues affecting silver traders can also impact Bitcoin and altcoins, suggesting a broader market vulnerability [1].