The moats in the article seem to be for a public personal brand tied to a niche skill that could make you a go-to expert for a while (a tool for others to use). That may work if you want to be the next Jason, Tim Ferris, Naval, etc to attract people, jobs, deal-flow, or funding, but what if you don’t want to give up your privacy or be subject to constant barrage of demands from strangers (making you likely unable to trust or open up to almost anyone)?
Here are some other valuable angles worth considering:
In the corporate world rise in the ranks is credited to: PIE (Perspiration + Intelligence + Exposure) where exposure gives you 80% of the gains. (Source: executives mentoring at a large corporation)
Also in the corporate world another saying claims: “Don’t ever become irreplaceable, because when you can’t be replaced, you can’t be prompted.” So owning a niche can easily backfire on you.
From the founder side, you almost want the opposite - you want to know all the trusted, best people to talk to and for them to trust and know you in a non-threatening way. That means ears for the ground and attention to the needs of your network, not flags in the air. I would much much rather consult, trust, and listen to 30 minutes of feedback by Jessica Livingston than 3 hrs of Gary V.
As a software architect I can maybe see ahead 2-4 years on what is possible. As a founder, thanks to my network, I can also see maybe 5 years ahead based on unmet needs on the radar of early adopters in whichever target market I dig into. That trust network grows over time and eventually rises all boats. Instead of a moat, you build a volcanic process that raises your mountain and the others around you. That signal can turn largely into noise if you become a public figure.