[1] - One of WDC's main 'selling' properties that's always touted is speed. But this is just blockchain transaction speed. In a point of sale situation, payments are handled by payment processors through accounts. Look at cryptocurrency exchanges for example - all trades happen instantaneously regardless of a coin's particular blockchain transaction speed. I've said this often on other forums, but if a crypto coin ever makes it into a grocery store or supermarket, we *won't* be doing blockchain transactions, we'll be using payment processors like Visa and Mastercard and transactions will all be instantaneous. A few minutes is fine for blockchain speed.
I'm not sure about this. One of the things that makes cryptocurrencies popular is their decentralisation. If we end up storing our cryptos on payment processors they'll basically be banks and we might as well have stuck with the old currencies. People want to be able to use cryptos the same way they use cash and speed (without trusting a payment processor) is important for that.
This isn't really a problem. You could apply this to literally any coin. There are a bunch of coins that have copied and "improved" on Peercoin's PoW/PoS hybrid but that doesn't really hurt Peercoin.
[3] - Proof of work is toast. It's now emerging that the previously "theoretical" concept of a 51% attack brought about by excessive concentration of hashing power is now a practical reality due to the phenomenon of massive hashing pools and mining viruses that can hijack millions of browsers. Proof of stake is the future because it's almost immune to this particular problem. (Doesn't mean there aren't other issues, but not this one). So that leaves PPC, XPM, NXT and such like as the contenders for challenging bitcoin. It's unlikely that Bitcoin itself will die because it's so established that the developers will find ways to defend against the 51%, like checkpoints etc. But second place downwards is going to go to proof of stake coins IMO.
I agree with some of this. A 51% attack is becoming more likely these days. However there is a logical inconsistency. You think Bitcoin will stick around because they can implement defence against a 51% such as checkpoints or perhaps something we haven't dreamed up yet. Why can't Worldcoin do the same? I guess you're holding Bitcoin and have decided you don't like Worldcoin and are therefore biased.
[4] - Have a look at what Scharmbeck actually does. Basically 3 things:
a) - a fiat exchange
b) - a client (secret mobile WDC clients)
c) - a payment processor
Talk about playing to your weaknesses:
regarding a) a fiat exchange that only supports one coin vs fiat exchanges that support many
If you hang out in the Worldcoin community you'll notice that they're keen to establish Worldcoin as a standalone currency instead of just another crypto. For example, they pay attention to the WDC/USD or WSD/EUR value where most other coins pay attention to the COIN/BTC value. Given this attitude, it makes sense to have a financial service focused on Worldcoin instead of just another add-any-random-coin-that-can-make-us-money exchange.
regarding b) ok, it might be a nice client, but a good client doesn't sell a coin, besides, there probably could not be a more competitive area right now
regarding c) as I said previously, if anybody is going to be doing payment processing in any significant way for cryptocurrencies, it will be existing people - Visa, Mastercard, Maestro, the banks etc. They already have an infrastructure that's currency independent, so adding a cryptocurrency will be peanuts if they think it's worth it.
Why can't Scharmbeck be the new Visa or Mastercard? In the early days of Google you'd be telling them they have no chance because other search engines are already established.
I think it's clear that you've decided you don't like Worldcoin and then have started looking for reasons to support that viewpoint. Heck, if the things you listed are Worldcoin's biggest problems, the future looks like pretty smooth sailing to me.