Hi Saurabh, thanks for your comments! Your response suggests that gold should be priced as any other commodity - which is to say, based on the point where marginal cost equals marginal revenue. For all other commodities, that is fine. But, as I outlined in my article, gold best and uniquely exhibits all the requirements for money. So, at the least, gold's value is some probability weighting between it's marginal cost of production and it's value as money - even if you consider its value and/or usage as money to be remote or unlikely.

As reflected by it's 40-fold increase in price over the past 40 or so years (since the world exited the gold standard), gold demand has increased dramatically. You also state that gold has market-driven pricing, which means that many intelligent, well-capitalized, reward-seeking, risk-reducing investors have gotten it wrong for 40+ years? In a world where markets react almost instantaneously to information and prices are set by the marginal buyer, the gold market has it wrong? For 40 years? I find your argument tenuous that the world simply hasn't awoken to the new paradigm. One of the key points introduced in my article is that the virtues of gold exist because gold uniquely meets the requirements of money. You appear to be arguing that it has no value in the current system and therefore should be priced as a commodity alone. So far as it is just a commodity, I would agree. But the point is that gold's intrinsic value as money exists with or without the existing monetary system - because people value it as money.

Now, in the future, could it be something else? Sea shells? Rubies? Solar panels? Sure, but whatever it is, it must fulfill the requirements of money and do it better than gold. And given that gold is currently accepted as the global standard as money, it means the new thing - whatever it is - must be so good as to displace gold in the minds of billions of people. It's just so remote, it is not feasible.