His initial argument is that it's okay to be mediocre because continuous success is just a "paradigm." That much was already clear. His argument falls apart when he tries to justify having enough, since that contradicts his initial argument. If continuous success isn't written in stone, then neither is having enough.

Nokia's anecdotal demise isn't a reason to not seek continuous success. In fact, one could use that same anecdote to argue that having enough leads to failure.

Distance between a founder and the product isn't an argument for not seeking continuous success. Some people prefer that distance and consider separation of labor to be more efficient.

It's clear that DHH has some bias against success. Given articles like this and his public bet that Facebook's share price would fail. It isn't based in logic though, just ideology.