Okay. I guess my confusion is with respect to the word "direct" and whether an index containing futures is "direct" or not. I guess it is. To me, "direct exposure" would be actually owning the commodities rather than two levels of indirection that an index containing futures would imply. But whatever.

So I guess it's incumbent upon the person who understands such things to report them to the appropriate regulatory authorities rather than downvoting random people just hearing about them for the first time.

That is precisely the point of my argument. You as a non experienced finance professional can see the fallacy in their methods (ie, they may as well have bought the gold in the first place, which is illegal), but they found a little loop hole to circumvent the rules and do whatever the hell they want with their fund, all while marketing it as UCITS compliant.