[JacobAldridge]

I don't see the benefit in having all of your country's gold reserves stored in your country?

Firstly, there's the the invasion risk the article referenced, to which I'll add internal political division (talking generally, not just about Germany, although 1989 was not that long ago in geopolitical time). Having all of your gold in the central bank sounds to me like having all of your eggs in one basket, waiting to be plundered.

But there's also the functional use of the gold. While I can't imagine these reserves being spent anytime soon, in the wider 50-100 year timeframe it's more likely that they may be needed for emergency purchases or as security. In that situation, having at least some of your reserves offshore, particularly in the US which is likely to be your wartime creditor based on history, makes more sense than having to ship it back in a time of crisis.

Repatriating it all just sounds like paranoia or nationalism to me.

TLDR: A good backup plan for your data involves an offsite copy. Why not the same with backup gold reserves?

[geofft]

The offsite copy involves trustworthy people, and unlike with data, there's no client-side encryption for gold.

If you do believe that the NY Fed, the Bank of England, and the Bank of France are "above reproach," then your argument is absolutely correct. But if you can't be sure of that—and this article is definitely attempting to cast doubt on that—then there's the usual argument about self-hosting. Amazon's probably a better sysadmin than most people are, but you're the only sysadmin that you have meaningful control over the competence of.