While I disagree with the assertions made within the article, I think the thought behind it falls under the "models which are wrong, but useful" category. Bitcoin is money, houses are money, gold is money, shells are money, etc. Some forms of money are more useful than others, but even though this assumption is wrong, the conclusions thereafter are still useful. This is basically proposing the strike business model, which is useful, but there are other Bitcoin businesses that will be built this bear market which will find this model not to be very useful.