It says that these don’t make economic sense as massive, market dominating corporations. It means that on a bitcoin standard they would be far more distributed and competitive and the value provided would be catered to more specific and smaller audiences and would change more based on locale and other factors.

If you think that it means we can’t have what Amazon offers without a giant, corporate, unprofitable, VC backed institution to suck up the whole market and push everyone else out, then I think you are misunderstanding the nature of value and how the market provides it.

To the contrary, Amazon is *destroying* value, because there is a better and more economically sensible optimum for providing the service. Evidenced by the fact that without being subsidized and killing 1,000 competitors while losing money for a decade on cheap fiat loans and VCs, it wouldn’t have lasted. It would’ve had to provide net value *much* sooner and at a smaller scale.