The purpose of the article seems to be for patio11 to congratulate himself for being so clever and to mock this CEO for daring to question him. I don't feel like he actually addresses the CEO's criticism in good faith.
To look at the very first point:
>> Silvergate was trivially solvent based on their call reports. Anyone assessing their liquidity position saw this (we were doing so). Your implication that they were doomed due to BSA findings doesn’t comport with any regulatory practice—banks don’t get closed for this.
> Had we stated or implied that Silvergate was insolvent, that would have been very improper. Insolvency of a financial institution is a serious charge. We assume McCauley believes we must have made it, because no bank CEO could possibly believe that solvency is the only obligation of a financial institution. We did not make this accusation.
I'm admittedly not knowledgeable about banking regulation, but it seems like patio11 is willfully misinterpreting the CEO's criticism. The CEO's claim was that patio11's article implied that Silvergate was doomed due to BSA findings, not that patio11 accused Silvergate of being insolvent.
I don't think the CEO did a great job either, as his criticism doesn't cite specifics in patio11's article, but patio11 is just further muddying the water by dunking on the CEO rather than considering whether he misrepresented anything in his piece.
patio11 also inexplicably switches from "I" to "we" partway through the article for no apparent reason other than to sound more pretentious. There is the line "The following is in the voice of the company." but he continues to refer to himself as "I" after that announcement.