A lot of his arguments against Bitcoin are based on the idea that proof of work and mining in general are unnecessary and don't serve any purpose. He also talks about how mining fees are basically a tax. But the miners are securing the network. The larger the network grows in value (ie Bitcoin price), the more important the function of securing the network is. Proof of stake is talked about as a plug in alternative, but what that really means is that the people with the most money have the most amount of control over the protocol (sound familiar?). With proof of work on the other hand, anyone can start participating and its much more democratic than proof of stak.
> It’s all wealth redistribution, not value creation.
The argument that digital gold has no value outside of speculation usually comes from people in rich developed countries with a strong financial system. They can't imagine anyone lives in a country where it's illegal to hold certain currencies or assets. Where they see their wealth shrink double digit amount every year. Where they have to go through great lengths to spend their money as soon as they get it due to inflation. Bitcoin is obviously too volatile to be used in transactions or a safe store of value, but theres a lot of work to be done in expanding financialization to the developing world