Four outcomes are possible (in my opinion):

Outcome 1. Total Failure 2. Yet Another Mediocre Shitcoin 3. DC Cultural Victory 4. The Fippening
What Happened? Drivechain doesn’t work. The launch is a disaster. L2L is abandoned and hated by everyone. DC works, but is unpopular. The coin’s value ends up somewhere between BCH and BSV. L2L is discredited, and its equity is worthless. DC is very popular – BTC ends up activating it! BTC miners overthrow gatekeepers. L2L becomes the most-significant BTC company. But the hardfork-coin is worthless (it can’t compete with BTC). DC is very popular – but BTC cannot activate it, due to cultural inertia. The hardfork-coin eventually dethrones BTC.
Coin Price $0 $250 $0 $100,000
L2L Equity $0 $0 $3.5 Billion $3.5 Billion

Outcome 1

Outcome 1 could happen in several ways:

  • Drivechain is a bad idea.
  • The hard fork is culturally un-salvageable.
  • Sabotage / politics.
  • Poor execution / hacked, etc.

…failure is always a possibility!

But I think drivechain is better (at least) than lightning. So it should manage to have some viability.

Outcome 2

On one hand, BCH and BSV are “more successful” than this project. They have their own communities – with their own celebrities. They have lots of users, and a dedicated fanbase.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that both BCH and BSV were inferior ideas with bad execution. There is also evidence that hard forks have about 1-2 years to prove themselves. All of which would imply that a brand-new, better-thought-out hardfork would actually enter in at a price above BCH ($550).

Outcome 2 vs 3/4

What separates mediocrity (outcome 2), from a smash hit (outcomes 3/4)?

Here is a timeline of events that might make a smash hit more likely:

  1. [Now] In the 2nd financing round, attract a “famous” lead investor and/or media partners.
  2. [2nd Round] Attract a whole round of investors, who can help position the project for a successful launchpad round.
  3. [Pre-Launchpad] Prepare for launchpad round, by crafting new marketing materials, website, slide decks, ‘ad blitz’, conference sponsorships, etc.
  4. [Launchpad] The launchpad round is a big success – large cash infusion, validates the project. Many new investors, each with skin-in-the-game.
  5. [Pre-Hardfork] In the months leading up to the hardfork-event, hype builds. Everyone weighs in on this “controversial” issue, and it becomes big news.
  6. [Launch] We launch with a bunch of L2s already working. We do not make the same list of mistakes, as BCH.
  7. [Sudden Moment] Some kind of “particularly embarrassing moment” goes viral. (Such as: lightning debate, lightning demo, fee-pocalypse.) This causes laypeople to question the High Priests of Bitcoin.

Instead, if we launch with little-to-no fanfare, then a mediocre outcome (#2) is more likely.

Outcome 3 vs 4

If DC is a smash hit –ie, a good idea, popular with users– then the big question is: will we land in Outcome 3, or Outcome 4?

Here are the factors:

Topic Outcome 3 Outcome 4
Core Dysfunction Bitcoin Core re-learns how to activate soft forks. Rationality and meritocracy reign supreme. Core remains unable to activate any soft forks (even older softforks such as CTV, or APO). Politics and bureaucracy triumph.
Miner Independence Miners (BTC) unilaterally activate DC, via CUSF – (Core be damned). Miners (BTC) remain passive, neglectful, and uninterested in Bitcoin development.
Learning Heterogeneity At some moment, everyone realizes at the same time, that Drivechain is a good idea. People learn at different rates that DC is good. DC remains controversial, at all points in time (in part, because fast learners get impatient, and leave BTC).
Experimentation Malcontent devs in BTC, continue to wait around for Core to support their projects. Some malcontent devs in BTC, switch to the fork-coin. Projects (such as CTV, quantum-resistant signatures) can launch there, as L2s – admittedly, it isn’t Bitcoin, but at least it’s something!
Investor Activism Investors perceive the fork-coin as risky, and avoid investing in it. Activist investors note the low price of the fork-coin, and buy it up in bulk. They plan to promote the coin, and increase adoption.
Fun The culture on the fork-coin is similar to BTC: toxic, self-important, paranoid, and stressful. People start having fun on the fork-coin.
Community Mitosis Users hold equal coins on both networks, adopting a “wait and see” attitude. Users split their coins, and divest asymmetrically. Toxic-maxis sell the fork-coin for more BTC. (This will later discredit them, as their criticisms will appear financially motivated.) DC-supporters shift their portfolio to hold more fork-coin. (This gives them a vested interest in BTC-never-activating-DC.)
Degrowth BTC “wakes up”, and switches from “de-growth” to “pro-growth” policies: soft forks, txn-fee maximization, sidechains, merged mining, privacy, pro-feature(s), pro-currency, pro-user, pro-miners, pro-adoption, and pro-innovation. BTC pursues “degrowth” policies: ossification, txn-censorship, lightning, covenants, anti-privacy, store-of-value only, digital property, pet-rock, pro-Saylor, pro-OCEAN, pro-toxic-maxi, pro-establishment (Core, ChainCode, Blockstream). DC-on-BTC becomes culturally de-emphasized by gatekeepers.
Miner Blockade Miners agree to support DC-on-BTC. Miners decide to blockade DC activation on BTC. After all, both coins are Sha256d mined, so miners mostly indifferent to a flippening. However, at this point, miners may own more fork-coin than BTC. Or, they may prefer to now invest in (cheaper) pre-flippening fork-coin, and then keep that as the only DC-enabled sha256d coin, so as to themselves make a fortune on the flippening.
L2 Network Effects If DC-on-BTC activates, then users are willing to quickly jump ship, back from fork-coin to BTC. Users of fork-coin L2s, prefer to remain there – even if BTC activates DC. This could be due to network effects (ie, users prefer to remain on the forkcoin-L2s, purely because other users are there).

If real-world events tend to resemble the far-right column, then we are more likely to end up in Outcome 4 (than #3).