Opened and transparent blockchains, especially Bitcoin, are better overall for the vast majority of people in all parts of the world. The idea of private validators creates the very sort of trust issues that Bitcoin has solved. This talk of being front run in particular (presumably only on the price markets?) is quite frankly only a concern to extremely large "users" who are trying to make extremely large moves in order to justify being on any chain analyst's radar. Ultimately if the market is large enough, what actors would really have the power to affect it so much just because they saw a big transaction? The people have a right to audit the big players at all times. The system as it is today is transparent only to powerful institutions and Governments, and simultaneously unknown to the general population, or reliant on 2nd hand reports being completely truthful, which creates even worse imbalances of power and warping of reality.

There appears to be a bit of a crypto hive mind. He touches on usefulness at the beginning and at the end, but the middle 75% he's just discussing volume, arbitrage, and front running; none of these things matter when you're trying to build a viable market whose goods and services are denominated in whatever cryptocurrency token you advocate. They expect it to magically happen, all by itself, without acknowledgement of the fact that you must go to the market, the market will not come to you. They're a little bit deluded about the benefits because using public money already has many of the benefits of crypto, the real window of opportunity is upsetting these vampiric digital payment processors, which they have no plan for.

Doesn't seem like he answered the question at all

First 🥇

The prof really missed the mark

NO !