It's not obvious to me what this changes with respect to the article, can you be more specific, especially since it's a long article? E.g. I think the point about the energy consumption, the lack of decentralization still stand.
> With Bitcoin, miners could attempt to control the currency, but then it would lose all its value, so they choose not to.
Why do you think that's the case? The author quotes research pointing out that the majority of BTC activity actually comes from speculation which might have little to do with security guarantees the Bitcoin network is supposed to provide, so having them break will not necessarily impact its USD/BTC rate.
I think there's a whole spectrum of control major miners could exert without much backlash in terms of value BTC would lose. E.g. if major miners agreed to prevent any transaction from a certain address from being mined ever, they can just ignore their transactions in their pool, and revert any block from other miners that would have these transactions. I don't see BTC losing value if this is done sparsely.