By who? The voters??

He seems to be saying that Bitcoin is still too complicated for the average consumer to be mass-adopted. He's doubting Bitcoin's usefulness as a typical currency and sees it being relegated to the backend, although I'm not entirely sure how.

Maybe the name 'Bitcoin' has put blinders on people, forcing them to relate it to traditional money. In reality, having Bitcoins means having power over the ledger. There's a number of transactions you're entitled to by having 1 BTC (limited because transactions can only be so small). Maybe there's utility to be found in being able to prove that information was transmitted at a certain moment in the blockchain, unrelated to the actual transfer of coins (perhaps using the block's comment section). Perhaps that can be used by companies that interface with consumers.

What that would look like I don't know.