Not only are they unproven, but there are mounds of evidence that it isn't possible.
>it seems kind of unfair for knocking a guy though for trying to analyze them anyway.
I'm knocking him because he is dangerously misinformed and is implementing and promoting broken cryptographic systems.
>However, in 2015, with the launch of Ethereum 1.0 and other competing systems, we'll get a lot more hard data than ever to find out which of these kinds of ideas are good- Both because these systems themselves test these ideas, and because they allow ideas like this to be built on top of them.
We already have seen that amateur cryptographers cannot make their unworkable ideas workable. You don't need another broken altcoin (Ethereum) to know this, you need to understand what the blockchain accomplishes to know this. I'm sure once Ethereum fails there will be a new next big thing and people will get sucked into another broken system, but you can actually understand what is a good idea if you try to understand the blockchain. You don't need to cross items from the near-infinite list of possible bad ideas to know what's a bad idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Ideas like this to be built on top of them." If you already have Ethereums PoW consensus system, what the hell would having a PoS consensus system on top of that accomplish?
>but they are not "fractal" and we will know in the near future with empirical data which ones need to be tossed away.
They are certainly fractal. One could recursively say why each of those fixes have problems, and eventually you would end up with a fully centralized system that masquerades itself as being decentralized and PoS or a completely broken system that is attackable for near-free.