My measured reply to the author:
Where to begin with this rather oblique article. First the author implies some deficiency with Bitcoin being valued in other currencies, instead of making the obvious connection that Bitcoin, like Gold, is valued in the sovereign currency of the buyer or sellers choice, and is much superior to fiat in general.
The real problem is that flawed sovereign currencies still exist in their easily printed forms, either digitally or physically. Then there's a bit of a rambling segue that attempts to link the bond market makers dissatisfaction with Bitcoin's free trade principles.
Bitcoin isn't a debt instrument, it isn't issued in the Trillions, and it will most certainly be around way after the debt market you speak of is a dessicated husk, much in the same way we consider natives trading with shells and beads to be quaint and ridiculous.
The world is going to undergo a rather alarming change (for those that have vested interest in ever-inflating currencies ruling the show), and Bitcoin is the catalyst. As the old financial dinosaurs like the author bray and shout about how "odd" and seemingly inconsequential Bitcoin is, they're just repeating the same obtuse logic that will leave them stuck in the tar pits, to be found by future financial archeologists.
