The article’s objection is probably relevant, but not necessarily the most important. It’s almost guaranteed that this con (edit: “coin” was intended, but “con” works even better) will end up governed by existing KYC laws, just as has happened with BTC.
The more interesting objection is about Facebook “disrupting” not the payment processing business, but the international monetary system (national banks etc.). There is ample reason to be concerned about this possibility, most prominently the fundamental idea that this system should be governed democratically, and not by industry, and certainly not by Facebook. Bitcoin was bad enough, with your power correlated with your wealth like a dark age’s feudal system. Restricting control further to a Silicon Valley Oligarchy is just dystopian.
The article may have ignored this line of argumentation because the system as it is currently planned just doesn’t really do anything to that effect: it uses existing currencies as the backend, does not (yet) involve any of the usual mechanisms of monetary policy (policy-based control of currency creation etc.).
Bloomberg’s Matt Levine had a long article on this yesterday, including a discussion how the basket-of-currencies backing might be a play to actually compete with these existing currencies.
