On this point specifically: The downside is that particularly young companies aka startups benefit from the relative stability of investors with a long-term commitment. There is a reason why companies, particularly tech startups, tend to go public later (if at all) these days.
I’m well aware that a token-issuer doesn’t necessarily need to be a company in the sense we talk about them these days (I’ve actually written about the future of companies in-depth here). Still, whenever you start a new undertaking, it might be preferable to not face the pressure of an open market.
Thus — as you hint at yourself a few sentences further down — I can’t stress enough that the entire design of a blockchain-based system needs to be very well thought-through. Minimum required holding-periods might be a solution, as might be other measures that create strong incentives not to trade.
A general note on your piece (to be read as constructive criticism!): I think that you make many good points. Yet, some parts project far into the future and present your inferences with such a high degree of confidence that it is borderline hype-creation (e.g. 12., 13., 14.) . There are still many real issues to overcome — not the least of which is broad adoption by real, actual users; a point you don’t even mention — before blockchain-based systems and dApps will reach the mainstream. Which is the precondition for sustained investments in them.
Yes, I think many of your predictions (because that’s what your points are; you might consider at least mentioning the word) have the potential to become reality. I assume that I’m way less optimistic than you are regarding the time-frame. But when speaking of a general direction, I can see them coming. However, there is a lot of uncertainty involved (regulatory risks etc.). First-order effects will likely lead to unintended consequences. Or you might simply have missed variables or misjudged their influence on your analysis (e.g. the the direct, personal relationships of the folks in the valley might turn out to be more valuable than you assume).
To sum up: You might wanna consider presenting your (good!) ideas with a little more humbleness and nuance while avoiding overconfidence. It would lend your analysis additional credence. At least in my eyes. That said, others might disagree and given the number of recommends I might be in the minority ;)