I was 2/3 through this before I realized that the point of the post is that the author's new venture is a better deal for founders than the traditional VC firm.
I spent most of the post thinking along the lines of "former founder offers free advice to other founders".
Sure, cdixon has his biases and own interests like any author, but he's generally pretty insightful. As readers it's up to us to think critically about what we're reading and figure out whether or not it actually makes sense. It's good to be aware of his potential conflicts of interest, but they don't automatically make him right or wrong.
That said, I do wish he would justify the "amount raised" and "pre-money valuation" line items under the "Seed+VC" hypothetical scenario column.
I really like Chris's blog. You didn't really point to a flaw in the core argument. It is normal to pursue ventures that you think are both good and leveraged.
I spent most of the post thinking along the lines of "former founder offers free advice to other founders".