He has a number of good points. He's applied his model of trust in society, which includes four major incarnations of trust (morals, reputation, institutions,

He has a number of good points. He's applied his model of trust in society, which includes four major incarnations of trust (morals, reputation, institutions, and security systems), to the topic of blockchain. This is a useful way of analyzing the utility of blockchain. However, the article doesn't touch at all on the historical situations in which people decide to reformulate the different aspects of that model. For example, why did the French people decide in the late 1700s to rise up and recast the existing institutions of trust (i.e. the monarchy)? Because they weren't working. Similarly, the bitcoin whitepaper appeared in many ways as a response to the 2008 financial crisis. During that period, it was very clearly demonstrated that existing trust institutions weren't working and that they also wouldn't be held properly accountable. Blockchain tech does not eliminate the need for trust. Smart people working and living in the blockchain space already understand this. In a sense, it's more appropriate to look at blockchain as a next generation trust institution (and I mean institution in a broader sense e.g. the "institution of marriage") which is more autonomous than what has existed previously. Just because the average modern day human doesn't understand and, therefore, trust blockchain technology doesn't mean that there aren't people who do both trust and understand the technology.