The article promotes a more moderate Bitcoin Maximalism, that does not abolish "Smart Contracts" or the possibility of another chain overtaking Bitcoin e.g. in market cap.
For the first point there are more and more 2nd layer solutions building on bitcoin, like RSK, or Lightning, supported by many Maximalists.
In the end I would prefer using those solutions which have the most seemless integration with my store of value.
Now my store of value of choice should be that of everybody else, or else it would not be a good store of value. This leads to the case where another chain overtakes Bitcoin.
This is kind of alright with me, as long as that chain is a fork of Bitcoin or an Airdrop, and it should probably be a done deal, meaning a vast majority of the ecosystem supports it, even before it goes online. In every other case, e.g. Ethereum overtaking Bitcoin, I could not accept the new leader as a store of value easily, since it could be replaced again. Especially if the replaced asset would lose worth quickly. Exception of course is a possible but improbable unfixable technjcal failure.
It seems I am risking the predestination trap.
