I did read his thread I don't think he responded to the actual complaints, I think he responded to his version of the complaints so he could say what he wanted. Allow me to respond to his points:
Contingent staking does not implement a KYC regime on cardano. It does not replace normal staking. It does not remove private pools. A marketplace of SPOs would still exist and allow people to continue to delegate to their preferences, including normal stakepools. (2/10)
Opponents of this concept offer no solution for how actors like governments, universities, regulated entities, not for profits, and others who could and sometimes actually do run stakepools can do so and stay in compliance with local regulations. I guess they don't matter? (3/10)
Opponents of CS don't seem to understand how dangerous an ISPO is without entry conditions and contracts prior to getting customer funds. They also want to remove all agency of SPOs claiming they are apparently a public good!? (4/10)
I'm not sure what a public good is in this context? SPOs compete against each other and charge fees for your delegation. They are an optional but valuable service provider like mining pools in bitcoin to enhance the quality of the network and reduce reward variance (5/10)
Apparently, they should have no say in who they do business with or the terms and conditions of business relationships. Even public utilities have contractual relationships with their customers, but SPOs apparently can't? (6/10)
I'm not sure why discourse broke down like this with CS, but it's a moment that everyone should reflect upon. As Voltaire looms, there are many tough decisions to make about the future, funding, tradeoffs, and roadmap. CS is a minor concern compared to the totality of it (7/10)
If governance is going to work for us all, then we need to stop having low information, dramatic, knee-jerk reactions to issues that aren't even codified in CIPs. We also can not use communication mediums that were built to polarize and divide for debates and discussion (8/10)