At the same time, applications on the Lighting network are starting to scale faster than many on the Ethereum network expected. 100,000's of users are live on different Lapps. The largest one now handles more BTC dollar value and live users than any Ethereum app.
Initially the ETH die hards say that Ethereum will come up with another scaling solution, but developers of Ethereum DAPPs have heard it all before and are increasingly skeptical. Easier programming tools like Simplicity have been developed, further reducing the barrier to entry for Bitcoin developers.
All of a sudden, some of the smaller tokens with real users decide that they aren’t happy on the Ethereum platform anymore. They begin by informing their users that their application will be available on both Bitcoin and Ethereum. There are some grumbles of concern, but once the first application moves successfully, perceptions change quickly.
Many tokens can be easily exchanged with cross chain atomic swaps for Bitcoin, and as users become more concerned about Ethereum's future, some token founders set a date for the token to use only Bitcoin Layer 2. Then it goes further. Some tokens decided to refund token holders with Bitcoin by burning and discontinuing their token altogether in exchange for its BTC value.
Let’s say for example something like Decentraland becomes popular as a place to exchange NFT’s. In the future an NFT standard, similar to ERC 721 is built on one of the Bitcoin layers. As most commercial transactions on Decentraland are being completed with Bitcoin anyway, users don’t really care.
The founders poll users, who want to move away from any central trust and interference and Bitcoin is deemed the best way. Instead of the price of $MANA crashing, it stays the same or even slightly rallys. A successful transition from $MANA and $LAND to Bitcoin as the value standard for the platform is completed within 12 months. The ease of transition begins a race to the door phenomenon among other tokens. Tokens realise they only needed the token to raise money and their users prefer Bitcoin as the most reliable store of value and base layer.
Transitioning to Bitcoin becomes a rite of passage for ‘strong tokens’. Projects that have an actual user base and want to provide improved liquidity, reliability and security. Transitioning becomes almost like an IPO in the sense that it shows the project name, users and brand alone are enough to ensure sufficient commerce in bitcoin.
Tokens are like the t-shirt that a band sells to earn money at early gigs. Inconvenient and illiquid but allowing loyal early fans to feel closely involved. Ultimately ticket sales for large venues in dollars make the more successful band, lasting money.
Today some people are listing an index of tokens that are Lighting compatible. Their Bitcoin-like features may make them more valuable. The logical endpoint to this is a full transition to Bitcoin. Paul Storc has documented his ideas for listing tokens as a Bitcoin Drivechain. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/bit-assets/
I’m not certain that this scenario will play out and other scaling solutions might surprise me. But if tokens gain traction, run into Ethereum network congestion and decided that Bitcoin has begun to scale more reliably, it may cause a separation from tokens that are strong and those that are weak. It may cause a flight to safety, through an old door.