Okay, so now that I'm able to actually read this thread, yeah I'm against drivechain. It doesn't actually help Bitcoin from what I can see. Sure, we'd have these VC's funding company CEOs to create company scrip or develop code for core that helps their company scrip thrive, but I'd be more worried about that making Bitcoin more vulnerable to attack especially attack by belligerent company interests. I think Drivechain would fundamentally strike at the heart of the social construct based soft fork activation we have with Bitcoin and miners and sidechain interests really would drive Bitcoin development into the future rather than the users.

I know some people who said they would actively URSF BIP-300, and if no new information or code changes that would change my view of it came up, I'd be inclined to join them.