Too bad you did not see anything good with my paper. But thanks for taking the time!
Regarding your criticisms, could you provide arguments for your assertions? For example, you seem to have a certain conception of what's important or relevant or not arbitrary, but you have not explained:
The paper makes a strong distinction between money, credit, and cash without explaining the importance or relevance of the distinction.
The importance is implicit in the fact that it is an objective distinction, based on the properties of gold versus credit tokens.
The paper tends to abuse the term "natural". It makes a big point about how money is naturally unique when a better description is "distinct".
Why is it better? The term "natural" is used because credit tokens are artificial or man-made; they cannot be found naturally like pieces of gold or valid nonces. Why is this not important in your view?
The paper takes the term "proof of work" too literally and fails to acknowledge its economic basis.
The paper states from the outset that 'proof of work' should not be taken literally as proof, and its function is economic or monetary. So your criticism is puzzling.
The paper conflates a chain of blocks with a chain of transactions.
A chain of (transaction) blocks is a chain of transactions.