OK put it simply. Don't claim to be an expert here. Don't come around telling people they can ask you questions. Because, many here don't trust experts.
The problem with being an "expert" means you know "certainty". The moment you claim "certainty" they become skeptical because they know certainty is bullsh1t.
Most people in this forum knows as I have stated earlier, you eat some now but save some for later. They will put money in gold but they won't put all their money into gold. They will put money in stocks but they will not put all their money into stocks.
Many already have a portfolio with target allocations. If they have gold, they will keep to their targets. No more, no less.
To stick rigidly to any portfolio target allocation is good discipline, but if such target allocation has no basis then it can be foolish.
Expert or no, I think we can make an educated guess as to the future. Consider the facts:
The U.S economy has miraculously avoided depression through "quantitative easing" - i.e. according to the government numbers. If QE can fix an economy then we need not have any industry/jobs etc - governments can print money from thin air to solve problems. History however shows us that this doesn't work.
What is actually happening is that the failed economy is allowed to continue and grow on QE money. The economy exists as long as QE exists. Ergo no QE -> no economy. So never mind the "numbers". Since are meaningless.
Consider rather the damage caused by QE. Naturally, an increase in supply of money leads to loss in purchasing power of said money. Naturally, loss in purchasing power can lead to owners of said money fleeing it for safer wealth vehicles (especially since the "easing" is so huge).
Gold, chosen by the market historically, is the safest wealth vehicle. On this basis we can make an educated guess that, whatever the short term numbers, gold must eventually climb to heights never been seeing before. On this basis revising those portfolio allocations may not be a bad idea.