I’m interested in this as a developer using an ICP + ArWeave stack. Not as a protocol-level expert, but I’ll add some observations based on experience.
The whitepaper introduces ICP as having inherently limited scalability because it requires consensus on results, not the inputs, of computations. Meanwhile every other major blockchain performs consensus on results, and ICP is kinda-sorta the most scalable. I think this language unfair until it specifies what compute/scalability limitations are being referenced.
Everything else seems a fair classification, albeit without mention of the tradeoff involved in having no fixed node incentives, a governance-heavy approach, or one size fits all security.
While we wait for AO, I think ICP folks should be more open to the idea of using other chains in their stack. The common rhetoric here that trips up newcomers is ‘store everything on ICP’. Than after searching/building an orthogonally persisted database (@lastmjs you remember pseudograph), you find something like ArWeave that is GraphQL on unlimited data in a few lines of code. While we wait, using ICP this way removes most protocol weaknesses. For those who love the Actor Model, this will likely remain the perfect combo.