Article dismisses bitcoin's solution to the double-spending problem as being solving "censorship", and argues that this is not necessary where identities are known.
If anything, the banking crisis has shown is that if actors can double-spend, they will (with impunity).
Article's argument falls at the first hurdle.
Security is a stance not a feature. Being caught vulnerable and on the back-foot can be /really/ hard to recover from.
Do risk-based security, and be realistic about remote risks.
It sounds like there are already concerns about identified risks.