In the end, I don't care either because if Bitcoin is successful, the economic forces involved would make IMF obsolete (unable to function for lack of funds). However, nothing the IMF does or says can ever give me fuzzy feelings because I'm morally opposed to what they are and what they try to pursue. Also here (note, I didn't read the paper but am going by OPs quotes) the author is extremely condescending. Take authority over Bitcoin? On what grounds? To me, to even utter those words means being completely disconnected from reality, honesty and fairness.
Your read is accurate—the author was not only condescending, but assumed somehow that the IMF had the right (without suggesting any legal justification) to integrate/regulate/control bitcoin. I assumed the guy was a figurehead within their econ department, given the presumptive authority with which he presented his "argument"—turns out he's just an adorable overachieving UC law student with an innate deference for the authority of global financial institutions (redundant, I know).
The subject of my OP appears to be a bit hyperbolic. My apologies, folks.
