Since this paper is motivated by its potential applications to QED, and since its statements about QED are highly misleading, I review just these statements. Those interested in the dressed nucleus itself should form their own opinion about the paper.
I quote from version v9.
the self-interaction in QED remains, infinite corrections persist, and renormalization ideology leads to a rather bizarre notion of bare pointlike particles with infinite physical parameters. (p.1)
This is not true; for example, QED in causal perturbation theory is free from all these problems.
Implementation of this idea in QED and in QFT removes the problems of appearing infinities. (p.2)
Where is this proved? Section 4 only provides analogies, which are not enough to substantiate the claim. Scientific standards would require for such a claim at least to reproduce one of the standard successes of QED (e.g., a prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment) for the proposed electronium model.
Thus, the problem of IR and UV divergences is removed in QED at one stroke by using the notion of an electronium (p.15)
These problems seem to be removed in electronium theory, but since electronium theory is neither gauge invariant nor Poincare invariant, it is a theory very different from QED. It is unlikely to have physical relevance.
The part analyzing the toy models might be useful, but they do not substantiate the statements made about QED. The author should cut out all claims and speculations about QED or at least qualify it according to what he actually proves.