According to Verlinde, there is no dark matter. Tell me how he's wrong point-by-point. Just because gravity is emergent doesn't mean it still cannot have effects similar to what's been perhaps wrongly attributed to dark matter. You can't just say "Bullet Cluster" and "Dragonfly 44" and piss all over it without explanation.
I'm in no way qualified to give any technical judgement on Verlinde's paper, but I'm aware that modified theories of gravity have been around for a long time without much success. Of course I'd like it if some elegant theory could be found that fit the evidence better than dark matter, but going by past attempts I'm not anticipating this one will.
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/11/08/soluti...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269