>the majority of demand for gold comes from non-investors (which appears to be the case in I think most quarters but perhaps not most recently)

There's actually been far more industrial usage proportionally recently than any prior year. Prior to 2020, the highest industrial usage year was 2016, at ~7%. The article is wrong; the VAST majority of the demand for gold does indeed come from investors. This is ignoring gold's historical status, of course. Before the advent of modern computing, there was extraordinarily little "practical" use for gold beyond use as tooth fillings. And yet, it is during this time that gold was most coveted. Why is this? Economists have been debating that for a century! :o)

>Jewelry is its own category but it does have “utility” if viewed through the lens of human behavior across civilizations over time.

Jewelry does have utility yes, but gold jewelry has no marginal utility over, say, brass jewelry, other than the material composition. And yet, gold jewelry commands a far higher price, and despite even this, it is still in higher demand. This is because buyers place a premium on the metal itself, hence why I referred to it as a para-investment.

Gold's coveted status is fairly easy to identify. It's one of the few physical elements that is (a) somewhat rare and difficult to mine (b) has an exceptionally long shelf life, even under harsh conditions e.g. under ocean water and (c) can be authenticated with simple tests e.g. nitric acid.

(A) applies to a number of metals, including ruthenium, iridium, rhodium, and osmium, all of which are less abundant than gold. Although industrial demand has caused the price of those to rise in recent years, the difficulty of extracting them gave them essentially no value historically. Production difficulty may cause the production cost of a given asset to rise, but in a market that must also be met with equivalent demand lest the effort be in vain. For example, I could go outside, pick up a large rock, and spend the next several days crushing it into a fine powder. This would be a fairly difficult process, and yet the end product would be worthless. Rarity does not automatically equate to value.

(B) is perhaps gold's most unique physical property, but given the historical prominence of silver (a metal that corrodes rather easily), I seriously doubt that this alone justifies a single ounce of gold historically having been worth an average person's months of wages.

(C) is true of many metals, and has only come into existence as a method for verifying gold in more recent years, which again belies its historical value.

Right, but few materials meet all of those qualities. Platinum is arguably the closest competitor.