Behind every fiat money used in exchange lies a unit of account defined by a monetary standard [which is] underwritten by credible claims to future surpluses monetized by the government and/or the commercial banking system. […] Claims of a ‘Bitcoin standard’ or anything like it are completely indefensible” (p. 28)

• The problem with this assertion is that it displays narrow present-bias, as well as loading a lot onto the word "credible". To what extent are future surpluses monetized by the government credible? In all parts of the world, at all times? Moreover, in what sense does Bitcoin not hold a credible claim to future surpluses? Just because it is not guaranteed by a government? Again, what is the guarantee of a government worth? Empirically, Bitcoin has been shown over a 15 year period to be a credible claim to future surpluses.

Rises in the bitcoin price do not prove the intrinsic value (or network value, or whatever) of Bitcoin any more than a lack of homes for sale in a neighborhood makes those homes infinitely valuable” (fn 48, p. 33)

• The problem with this assertion is reducto ad absurdum / straw man fallacy. No one said that homes in neighborhoods with limited supply are infinitely valuable, and no one said Bitcoin is infinitely valuable. However, we can reverse the argument against them: why do homes in neighborhood with limited supply grow in value? Because there is demand. Similarly with Bitcoin, the only reason it has any price point is because demand exists.