I wonder how much "inherent" value gold actually has vs how much value we ascribe to it though. I.e. nobody is holding onto a 2 inch cube of gold instead of a house because at the end of the day they could make some jewelry out of it if it comes to it.
On the flipside any currency-like concept that could come to be worth more as the raw commodity than the currency seems inherently unstable as you'd be better off using it than keeping it.
You'd have to look at a lot more than that. What are the demand/supply curves and how will the change in supply affect the value, what's the actual inherent value in the jewelry vs the value from gold having ascribed value and being used in jewelry, once you have that how much of the value in jewelry is itself an investment of gold vs other value. Repeat for each remaining sector. All that graph tells you is the demand for gold would be non-zero if its utility as a form of currency/investment went away, it says nothing of how much inherent vs ascribed value we put in it.
I don't have answers to the above, I think they'd be extremely hard to get, which is why I used the house vs 2 inch block of gold to illustrate there is at least a significant amount (likely the majority) of the value is ascribed rather than try to put a quantitative number on it.
On the flipside any currency-like concept that could come to be worth more as the raw commodity than the currency seems inherently unstable as you'd be better off using it than keeping it.