I’ve already declaimed at length on Sovryn’s Discord regarding this topic; suffice it to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly.
To distil the rhetoric: BTC is Sovryn’s lifeblood and raison d’être. BTC HODLers represent an abundant, untapped resource which for ideological reasons remains closed-off to mainstream defi, yet still within reach of Sovryn; furthermore, it seems obvious that such low–time-preference mindsets, if adequately incentivised, can then make for ideal long-term stakeholders, early-adopters and grass-roots participants in platform governance.
To HODLers, who typically regard Ethereum’s and BSC’s ever-shifting foundations as emblematic of ‘everything wrong’ with defi, that 0.2% risks making ours a ‘bridge too far’ right out of the gate—and yet the idea of a free bridge, by contrast, is precisely the proverbial (and memetically marketable) call-to-arms which should cement Sovryn’s foothold and invigorate RSK as a whole.
What’s more, by making these defi-newcomers ‘honoured guests’ of the protocol, one not only fosters good-faith but also relieves pressure to immediately recoup on-costs, freeing our intrepid inductees to pursue lower-risk activities (e.g., lending) and expand comfort-zones at their leisure; as opposed to mining liquidity, sustaining impermanent loss, and then feeling (not altogether-unreasonably) that those initial misgivings were perhaps warranted after all.
Moreover, I’d argue your fifth ‘con’ is actually a ‘pro’ for this very reason: if Sovryn can parlay its first-mover advantage into becoming the de-facto gateway onto RSK, servicing all comers and aggregating liquidity on both sides of an ever-deepening moat, then that mere “head start” swiftly approaches near-unassailable escape-velocity.
And if we don’t? Well, then I’d say we’re in danger of eventually playing second-fiddle to RSK’s answer to Nerve.
N.B. @light expressed a similar notion on Discord; I’d be curious to hear his input.