I have some objections to this analysis.
The "wildly contradictory" arguments that you point to are precisely the problem: Fees could be so high that only rich people can use L1 (plebs sure aren't going to spending $50 every transaction) while at the same time even these higher fees could represent a such a small fraction of total market cap that it doesn't keep things secure.
My understanding of the drivechain idea is that it's aiming to aggregate huge volumes of lows fees up to main chain. It's not clear that it would work exactly as planned, but it does represent a possible Goldilocks arrangements that doesn't fall back onto Saylor's silly "oh but rich people pay to transport art and pay real estate agents 3%" argument. I'm having trouble picturing high value investors needing to settle $10 million a few times a second.
Certainly, we're not relying on high value investors constantly making L1 transaction to keep Bitcoin running?
If Bitcoin where to obtain this sort of global store-of-value status such that trillions of dollars was changing hands every day, handling transactions off L1 would have become the norm. If I'm a rich folk settling $10 million in a single transaction, it's not the security of PoW that I'm most interested to pay for, it would be the handling of keys and this sort of thing that your average Walmart heiress isn't going to be confident with - so this will be handled by boutique Swiss bankers, who would devise their own ways to skimp paying the billions of on-chain fees.
The problem with putting the security assumption on high net worth investors is that they are the easiest to capture, they don't care about censorship resistance. If the blockchain is captured by a monopoly miner or a cabal of corporations, it need not cease to be a store of value, as long as these high net worth investors continue to believe it's a store of value.
Also, no need to pile on to this "VC-backed" ad hominem: Either it's a well-thought out idea (since 2015) or it's not
