This seems like a really long-winded, single perspective (and perhaps even revisionist) way of justifying one possible use-case, in which the author has an oblivious conflict of interest. Maybe he's got some ideas of what a possible future could look like, but it's hard to square this with it conveniently running through the technologies where he's invested, and there's no explanation of how the NFT exchange he was earlier trumpeting is critical to this future. I've read his posts for years and they've evolved into Andreessen Horowitz-style PR masquerading as deep & critical thought pieces.