I agree with the common themes of the comments: 1) the paper presents a good idea, and 2) the paper is poorly written. Even though the paper takes an abstract approach, I think it would have been useful to include more simulations. I agree with Bianca that the author abuses the use of footnotes, since most of them could have very easily been included in the main text of the paper.

Also, I was wondering how this paper could be built upon, i.e., what is the next step for research given the main conclusion in the paper.