I think that panpsychism is one of a handful of views in contemporary philosophy that ought to be treated as a reductio, but have truly brilliant proponents who have convinced the profession to giving those positions more time than they are due.
To clarify, panpsychism is still a very small minority position.
I'm not the OP, but I think the problems with panpsychism are that 1. it creates more problems than it solves (the combination problem and its sub-problems), 2. it's anti-parsimonious, 3. it follows a poor track record of philosophers assuming the mysterious thing in question is fundamental (i.e. ontologically basic) and being proven wrong. Don't know why people insist on making that same mistake.
To clarify, panpsychism is still a very small minority position.