It is not compatible. I don't give a shit about that article, or the concept of velocity of money. I have written about that numerous times. Although it can be computed, giving a number, the parameter says exactly nothing of the value of money.
I don't get. At least at its core, this isn't some economical conjecture, this is just what you can or cannot do given a set of constraints on your medium of exchange.
If we agree on a medium that consists of a total of 10 tokens, we know that we'll buy and sell goods worth $100 each day, each transfer causes the tokens used in that transfer to be out of circulation for one day, then there is no way around an associated valuation per token of at least $10, or one of the other constraints has to give in (more tokens, less value transferred, less time before token is back in circulation).
At least to my understanding, velocity of money is essentially a formalization of the intuition behind the trivial example I just gave.
But feel free to correct my lack of understanding on this matter. It's possible that I'm missing something very fundamental here.
To measure the velocity, you have to remove transactions that are purely financial, and those transactions in the production structure that would be eliminiated with a completely vertical business structure. Basically, you want only the payments for consumer goods. That means that it is just another measure of the total consumer production.
In bitcoin, you can use bitpays numbers for a year and add some percentage for all the rest of the consumer payments, then divide by the found coins.
In practice velocity is never measured, it is computed using the absurd keynesian quantity formula, which then always is correct, because any other three numbers you put into the formula, you can fix with the velocity.