I'm not sure I understand your criticism, Krzysztof. Any valuation process--whether it's DCF, or adjusted multiples, or a "venture capital method," or whatever--can be applied correctly, or it can be applied incorrectly. The controversy shouldn't be about the valuation approach (the conceptual model) but the valuation practice (the model with values plugged in for key parameters).
Some of Damodaran's work focuses on the difficulty of identifying good data and avoiding "garbage in." For example, the first of his papers that I link to above notes that some managers (corporate executives, private equity managers, etc.) encourage investors to overvalue their assets by obfuscating true data--that is, by trying to get them to use "garbage in"--while the second notes that they may encourage investors to overvalue their assets by ignoring the value-destroying effects of illiquidity.
The job of the investor (or analyst) is to uncover the true value by finding the best possible numbers to plug in to the valuation model. But it's the parameters, not the modeling approach, that separates a good valuation from a bad one.