This may be debatable. Indeed, for a small investor this may look bad/unfair (although in theory the price of gold should rise enough vs fiat to cover this), the gold has to be stored somewhere and that storage costs money.
For a big investor it is clearly a good business because he will not have to care about the storage and insurance.

Of course, they may have been able to find another ways to gather money (fees?) to cover these costs, but ... isn't the holders who cause the bigger amounts of gold need to be stored? Wouldn't be even more unfair to increase various transaction/transfer fees (on which they also have less control)?

The more interesting part is that exchanges are excepted from this fee rule, but I would not entrust exchanges for long-term holding my assets.



Indeed, the increasing number of very low quality "answers" from people not reading/following the thread and the fact the original question was already answered properly indicates that the thread should be locked.