Not so fast. A monetary system is a very valuable thing which provide a variety of means of exploit. This is why entities try to monopolize them.
Entities try to nibble around the edges with 'gift cards' and such, but so far those who own the dominant monetary solutions have defended the ones they own adequately. The primary tool they use are the state judicial and enforcement capabilities and they do this by lobbying, revolving door strategies, etc.
I foresee sidechains as a way for many entities to actually take control of operation of their own monetary systems and realize the benefits that doing so can achieve. To some extent these actors would need to transfer some of the benefits to the userbase in order to be competitive against one another.
I could imagine (and hope for) a situation where there would be, say, AmazonCoin, MyStateCoin, MyCityCoin, MyChurchCoin etc, etc. I think it possible that if the larger and more powerful entities saw a negative benefit balance between supporting the status quo and owning their own monetary solution they might drop support for the former. Such a thing would be pretty revolutionary. If it were an option in time for the next bail-out (or more likely, bail-in) I would not be surprised or saddened to see the Federal Reserve in my country become an extinct footnote in the history books.
So the idea of instead of having one currency but instead having company currencies is ideal to you? This seems like a total pain in the ass and if you keep your money in bitcoin you would constantly be converting to a new currency wherever you go.
Computers are good at such things, and one of the operating costs that an entity would take on would be performing such translations and they would be more-or-less invisible to the end-user. Indeed, most translations from one sidechain to another would probably not even hit the Bitcoin network. In most cases a sidechain would perform an actual Bitcoin operation on some daily (or more) schedule for major adjustments to their circulation. These types of operations are very cheap these days and crypto offers a lesser (or non-existent) exposure to counter-party risk and the ability to allow high degrees of transparency if their users demand it.
You cannot very well argue that Bitcoin is viable as a cost effective way to achieve transactions digitally and settlements in a sidechain network are either difficult for end-users (as an electronic cash equivalent) or higher costs. Just the opposite is in fact true.
The wild-card would be how much regulatory burden exists. This, in conjunction with exploitation by the monopolists, is the main thing driving up costs in our current environment. I hope that if Bitcoin can itself remain free, there will be pressure from would-be sidechain operators to make the state lay off to a reasonable degree. Especially if sidechains are proving valuable in other parts of the world and giving their users a competitive advantage.
Again, it is critical that Bitcoin remain free, and that can only happen if it can operate in extremely hostile environments. Even ones where all coroprate network providers are actively attacking it on mandate from a majority of nation states.
---
I did not take an interest in Bitcoin as some sort of half-baked PayPal replacement. My interest is predicated on it's potential to be truly revolutionary. I never felt that it had a very high probability of overcoming the resistance and attacks and I still do not, but I still think it has enough of a chance to work towards. I could see Hearn's XT attack coming since I took a position in 2011 and have spent the interceding years warning against it.
