No, I don’t agree, and it’s quite simple why: that formulation is from another context, and wasn’t applied in this one.
You were asking why the consensus used for data is OK there, but not for tokens. David explained why.
The citation though follows up with an explanation which shows that it is another context:
That is to be read “we don’t want to commit to that design, as we would then be required to solve a problem we do not yet know how to solve”.
Too few individuals is what is meant (and is the problem it cooks down to either way).
I personally don’t think there is enough information to show what level of security Method1 would give. What I see with that method is uncountable number of known and unknown risk points during an extended time. It’s hard to asses which of them all would be there in the end, but to me it seems very hard to ensure that there would be anything less than a very large number of them.
All that to say that it’s a quite complex long running arrangement all in all.
Method2 is not a method described by Maidsafe (not recently anyway), as what has been said is that an autonomous distribution is yet not known how to solve.
So the comparison you are trying to make is moot, akin to divide by zero. Once there is something to compare to (any suggested solution) then a comparison can be made.
Though even at that point, I think perhaps someone else than me would have to answer that, considering that I find the security of Method1 very hard to assess (and thus to compare with).