He makes a number of incorrect statements. Bitcoin is a medium of exchange, and volatility doesn't affect this. Fiat is not money any more, contrary to popular belief. The prices of gold, Bitcoin and fiat are all manipulated. The cap is just one thing that gives Bitcoin a hard asset status, another is the immutability and stability of the blockchain, and now other crypto is likely to copy this. This is why they need an element of centralisation.
I think the guys has put together a bunch of misconceptions, and is trying to use an ancient Chinese philosophy to justify a weaker alternative concept.
Bitcoin is decentralized and has limited supply. It is detached from fiat money to the other extreme. Therefore, it's inherently volatile compared to fiat. Gold has this problem. Gold is decentralized and is scarce. You can either get centralization and stability or decentralization and volatility. This is what Yi Ching tells us. It does not say centralization or decentralization is bad. It lays out what centralization or decentralization can and cannot do.
I also analyze Ethereum properties. Ethereum reduces the number of nodes and has a flexible monetary policy. Under Yi Ching, these changes will move Ethereum towards centralization.
