I know. And so do many other materials. But I hope you're aware of gold's role as financial backing, and that that role has nothing to do with its useful properties in electronics, medicine and science.

> I know.

This was an odd statement to make, then:

> I don't even see gold as having intrinsic value; it only has value because we agreed to consider it valuable.

> But I hope you're aware of gold's role as financial backing

Yes, of course.

What is the odd statement here? You know very well what I'm talking about, and yet you want to play dumb? The value of gold as financial backing does not come from its electrochemical properties. You know this. So why keep pushing that issue?

I think that rephrasing

> I don't even see gold as having intrinsic value; it only has value because we agreed to consider it valuable.

to something like

> Gold's value in financial backing outstrips its intrinsic value

would improve the message.