I'm torn on the idea of "everything on Bitcoin"...

On the one hand, consolidating to the hardest money makes sense.

But... everything becomes *dependent* on Bitcoin and could be overturned and abandoned with a hard fork. So if, say, there is a Bit-Monero drivechain, and a state power influences enough miners to hard fork OR just not merge-mine the Bit-Monero, the users of that chain are screwed. I don't see anyone from "real" Monero moving to Bit-Monero at all.

And Ethereum-- fuggetaboutit. No one is leaving Ethereum for Bit-Ethereum.

So maybe all this does is sound the number of shitcoins in existence.

Then again, it might be worth it if just one if those chains would allow billions of people to onboard to Bitcoin quickly.

There is also this implication that "bitcoin isn't good enough" as it is, which maxis don't appreciate. There seems to be a loud group of ossifists saying it's fine if Bitcoin is only and always a store of value (or "property" as Saylor is now saying) and not currency.