You mean aligned with ‘your’ Vision of the potential of Bitcoin. 
He will lose out if there’s a 6102 attack but the majority of big players would capitulate because they would want to avoid jail. 
As for ‘playing in to the hands of the state ‘ he is the CEO of a listed USA company and has many fiduciary responsibilities he can’t avoid and it’s not his responsibility to be a beacon for anarchic reform. 
He is protecting his interests  as we all are. 
Overall, I think he has been and is, good for Bitcoin.