His theory is that ‘trust is constrained by the possibility of an attack’. Specifically the generation of anonymous decentralized trust, and specifically economically constrained.
Being ‘less constrained’ could be seen as ‘lower chance of attack’ which SAFE hopefully will offer due to disjoint sections, random relocation, ageing, proof of resources etc.
Being ‘less constrained’ could be seen as ‘constraints other than the economic ones are more important’. I think this is also true for SAFE because if SAFE can become important to people beyond economics (eg political / personal / social) then simply the non-economic value of that data becomes a significant constraint on how much trust can be generated.
Being ‘less constrained’ could be seen as ‘less consequence from an attack’ which SAFE should offer compared to blockchain (debatable).
Being ‘less constrained’ could be seen as ‘the upper limit on the value of the network doesn’t depend so much on the attack scenario’ which this topic has shown to depend more on the size of the network than the value of the attack. The value also has a higher ceiling than the pure economic value since the data being stored is not purely economic and has some ‘intrinsic’ value.
My response to his theory would be ‘SAFE is less economically constrained than blockchains because trust is generated from broad utility of data, not just the direct economic value of the token’.
The possibility of an attack is still an economic constraint for trust in SAFE, but it’s much less of a constraint than in blockchains.