Also anyone with the means can still do a 51% attack if they wanted.
Not quite, at least in PoS protocols with off chain governance. If somebody with billions of dollars decided to attack Ethereum, the community would be able to fork the protocol and drain the malicious nodes of funds, basically burning the attacker’s capital over a short time.
My biggest pessimism around crypto is that if you cut off the convertibility of crypto to national currencies, make part of the punishment for using crypto civil forfeiture, and if you did this with just USD but especially with a few major currencies. I think you do that and you break crypto's back.
I think one of the things we should take away from crypto is that a small cabal of special interests being able to block payments is very bad.
In regards to 51% attacks they aren't going to happen to Bitcoin or Ethereum.
For possible flaws, to put it in terms that technical non-crypto people understand, his arguments are like saying "well Heart Bleed happened and this could happen again thus all computers are unsafe and you can never trust them to be secure" which is technically true but that doesn't mean we should give up on personal computers and store all our data in the cloud. Blockchain developers are very smart and build defense in depth against attacks, there's a reason why Ethereum has tens of billions of USD stored on it.
There are protocols for transferring cash on Ethereum (LUSD, RAI) that you can use that no one, not even nation states spending billions of dollars can stop you from using.
The tradeoff is they won't scale to the world. But then there are less secure protocols (DAI, USDC) that do scale which will be fine for 99.9% of people (who aren't terrorists or being targeted by the government).
Tech is all about tradeoffs and you can learn about them from experts in the field rather than an obviously anti-crypto YouTube video to understand them.
All of these are far more censorship resistant than any banks or traditional financial services.