I understand Charles' point about the benefits of peer review but on some level it just feels like clever marketing for Cardano. Ultimately software is validated and verified through testing. The game theory element of these systems is so complex now that the only way to test that portion is to set it loose and let evolution take place.
So we shouldn't peer review the architecture? Even I have to send my arhitecture plans for a review and I am not creating a multi billion dollar currency.
As I said, peer review has its benefits. Peer review possibly could catch flaws prior to investing a lot of time and money in a project. However, Charles making the assumption that Cardano is the only project that is doing peer review or doing peer review in the only correct way using the particular conference and boards they happen to select and then bashing every other project on the point seems to me more like marketing for Cardano then it does anything else.
No he is also talking about other peer reviewed papers/projects like zcash and others if you ever listen to his talks. Also talks about good things that other coins are doing, like dash treasury model. Also if you dont know IOHK has ETC team and Daedalus will support ETC so they are seeing a lot of potential in other projects. But of course he is trying to raise standards in crypto space. But in the end markets will do what markets do. And who would blame him the standards are awful so many scams and shitcoins.