We are still talking past each other. (Or one of us is, or something).
Let me try again:
I don't follow. I'm talking about the network being able to enforce rules about how and when you can transfer the token. If there is a mechanism which I cannot implement using truthcoin because the blockchain's rules are not flexible enough then we are talking about totally different assets, what does scarcity have to do with this? Gold was the original scarce asset, why not use gold instead of bitcoin or truthcoin? Because you can't send it over the internet / use it within prediction markets, right? As you just said, there are some mechanisms which can't be simulated with PMs, and if they happen to also need to operate in a decentralized network, they would need their own token-on-a-blockchain. Ethereum meta-protocols would also be sufficient, but notice even then it is not Ether but the embedded token that would have demand generated for it.
Allow me to restate your position:
p1. Some mechanisms can't be simulated with PMs.
p2. Some mechanisms operate on a decentralized network (which includes blockchain as well as non-blockchain).
p3. Some mechanisms need their own token-on-a-blockchain.
a2. All mechanisms where p1=p2=TRUE have p3=TRUE.
c1. "there are some mechanisms which can't be simulated with PMs, and if they happen to also need to operate in a decentralized network, they would need their own token-on-a-blockchain"
a3. Some mechanisms where p3=TRUE will need a non-Bitcoin, non-Truthcoin blockchain.
c2. There will exist viable non-Bitcoin, non-Truthcoin blockchains.
I agree that p1 and p2 are relevant, and agree with a1. I don't agree with a2 (with, for example, 'seller activity among online auction-houses (ebay, Craigslist)', 'the FOREX market', and 'the season rules to a recreational softball league' being counterexamples), so I don't agree with c1. Even if I did, this post is mainly about arguing against a3, your assumption that new networks would require new blockchains. I don;'t know where you are going with p3, as there are already colored coins and multisig addresses.
I am talking about the most efficient way of
providing a service to consumers. Improving the technical details of the Bitcoin blockchain (to make it faster or more reliable at doing what it already does, but NOT to provide new services), or copying the Truthcoin blockchain 100 times to reduce the load on each blockchain,
wouldn't count as new blockchain designs, because they would not provide new services. I am saying there may be insufficient market demand for a DAC for services other than value storage / transfer (Bitcoin) and value-escrow (Truthcoin), because
consumers only demand trustless digital scarcity in the context of those services.