This is NOT a risk to gold prices and the reason why explains an important lesson about gold and bitcoin that very few people understand. There are obvious feasibility questions, but we can ignore those and even assume it pans out. Based on Marathon’s estimated goal, a large reactor could produce 5t/yr. So even if you build 100 reactors thats 500 t/yr, equivalent to 14% of global mine production. But mine supply isn't what matters. Other commodities are consumed. Oil gets burned, copper gets trapped in existing infrastructure, ect. So new production is required to meet continuing demand. But gold (and bitcoin) are unique bc they aren't consumed. Nearly all the gold ever mined still exists and is available to be traded. So the relevant supply curve isnt the flow of newly mined supply, its the willingness of the holders of the existing stock to sell at a given price. And even 100 reactors would only increase above ground supply by 0.2%/yr. Price doesn’t go up to incentivize new production. It rises (or falls) to a level where enough existing holders are willing to sell to meet the demand of buyers. Which is why the most explosive price appreciation in Bitcoin occurred when new coins were being mined significantly faster than today. Bc new issuance isn't driving price, its demand relative to the available stock. *The fact that gold isn’t tied to marginal cost dynamics is also why goldminers have often struggled to earn adequate returns. But that’s a story for another time.

Gold dipped below USD 4,000 intraday this week, and headlines stopped there. Underneath, the Dutch central bank has moved about 86 tonnes of gold from New York and Ottawa to London since March, and London's vaults kept FILLING. This week's Nugget follows the bars. Read below.

Rather than turning mercury into tiny amounts of gold at an absurd cost, maybe we should develop technology that turns politicians into people who can balance a fiscal budget.