Yes, chain space is a limited resource and at the same time optemising it to near capacity and reducing the fluctuation of demand kinda implies that eventually a very large amount of traffic on it is fully automated and can adapt relatively quickly to the change in demand, sheltered at least one layer from the base layer.

I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing a likely pivot from BTC on chain towards sats on LN.

I don't see any problem with people running casinos based on Bitcoin per se, just that it would be better if it ran on top of LN instead. I see no sane reason why there needs to be anything other than LN making up the bulk of transactions on chain. This would achieve the optimisation of base layer utilisation because the main competition would be between LN node runners, who generally are trying to avoid on chain fees. This equilibrium will be very strong once it starts.

Protocols based on LN are far far more interesting than more stupid sidechains. People just don't have enough imagination to even conceive of it.

Why would you chain your protocol to max 4mb of BTC transactions as its limitation when you can build off LN and you have no scaling dilemma to deal with anymore.

LN is the future. Bitcoin is the foundation, LN is the walls, and the protocols that build on LN are the roof.