While I agree that BTC will likely never fully replace gold, I do have to say that chart above is a bit of bias bullshit to be honest.

Durable? Why does gold get 10 and BTC get 8 when BTC can never be destroyed? They both can be lost but otherwise they are equal so why does gold get 2 extra points for no reason?

Divisible? Why does gold get a 7? BTC can be divisible to well under a cent so it does deserve its 10 score, while the smallest viable size gold can be divided is to what .5 grams which is still over $20 USD. What if I want to buy milk or some other small items? Gold can't even really be used for that at all, and IMO deserves a much lower score then 7 (silver could get a 7 here but not gold... gold is a 5 score at best for this).

Convenient? I somewhat agree with this score for now but as the crypto space evolves the convenient of BTC is going to soar to a 9 or 10 while gold will always remain as a 2 or 3.

Possess Value? Nothing has value and everything has value all at the same time, it's all based on what is accepted by the masses depending on the situation. In the past gold WAS money and therefore its accepted level of value was extremely high, but we now live in a day-and-age where a MAJORITY of the living population has never lived in a world where gold was money in any form (even as a backing for fiat currency). Don't get me wrong I still think the majority of people accept gold as having value but this mindset is growing smaller and smaller as time goes on. As for BTC it is still too early in the adoption stage to really gauge its overall value so its really a hard one to accurately score.

Limited quantity? This one is up for debate. I mean if you ask a diamond store how rare diamonds are they will tell you extremely rare, but truth is they aren't very rare at all (they are just mainly found in specific locations on the planet and have been hoarded by select people over the decades which hold the majority of them back to create artificial scarcity). The same is likely true with gold as well, as there is likely many times more physical gold out there then is openly admitted to the public. On top of that the gold supply could drastically increase in the future in a short period of time as technology increases through things like creating gold from matter via advanced energy technology or mining asteroids/planets which both could yield many times more gold then they world currently admits to having (aka it isn't as finite as most people say...). I guess the same can be said about BTC however since it can fork unlimited times which technically indirectly increases its supply in a sense.

Long history? This is the only score I fully agree with, but just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it is the best. A good example of this is... if gold is such a good currency then why time and time again over history has is been replaced with something better over and over again? Sure the replacement always tends to fail due to corruption but my point is if gold works so well why even look for a replacement in the first place? The fact that the world time and time again attempt to improve upon gold as a currency by finding replacements, shows that although it works decently, it isn't the most optimal solution to the problem, and this still remains true to this day.

My scores
Gold: 10, 4, 2, 8, 8, 6, 10 = 48
BTC: 10, 10, 9, 6, 8, 9, 6 = 58

Don't get me wrong I think people should hold both even just as an insurance policy against a dying fiat system, but IMO gold doesn't really have much of a place in the digital age we are now living in. Just my 2 cents...