I'd love to hear the one main argument against it. Throwing 7 arguments (some of them related) is throwing too large of a net. Is he hoping to get people convin

I'd love to hear the one main argument against it. Throwing 7 arguments (some of them related) is throwing too large of a net. Is he hoping to get people convinced with at least one of the points resonating? IMO, in order (and happy to be proven wrong, I am curious what others think): 1. I'm not sure why this would matter. Wouldn't that mean that the insiders have all the incentive to sell the bitcoins they own, even in time – so they can make some "real" money? Wouldn't the price have crashed / gone to zero so many times until now? (there were plenty of opportunities to sell). There is def speculation in BTC, I am not denying that. 2. This is incorrect. Some (most?) people view BTC as a store of value, so in essence, transactions can be few and far between. The adage here is "transaction costs too high? – it means you're moving too little BTC". The Lightning network does play a role in transaction costs. 3. This might a good point. I don't know enough about Tether's use but I have heard this argument raised before. 4. Agree with author, but this point is rather vague. It could go either way. Not sure if regulation is as much of a silver bullet as he makes it out to seem. 5. This is a corollary to the above 2 points, so not really a different argument. 6. Is this the main argument? The author does seem to be an environmentalist - but there are plenty of arguments against this point too. I personally disagree with this point. 7. Again, not really a point, just a rant on what the author thinks are the people that own BTC. At this point he's just insulting BTC holders really, so you know, pyramid of argument (attack the argument not the person etc.) makes me discard this point entirely. Again, curious what others think, lots of smart people here.