P.S. I am not asking for any funds or investments.
Well this is new had my fud ready and all.
This is purely an interop standards effort. All participating blockchains benefit from the network effect.
The user centric goals, means that users that are most comfortable on blockhain X, just stay there. Trades against the host currency will be the most efficient, so for most of the people most of the time nothing changes.
However, if something makes a different blockchain more attractive for that specific user, he would be able to migrate some or all of his assets there. This sets up the different blockchains to compete for residency of the assets and since the asset total is blockchain(s) enforced, short of a blockchain totally stopping, the asset value is protected. Even in that case, we could probably have some provisions for snapshot resurrections.
Due to essentially side chain type of issues, the transfers will necessarily take many confirmations, but like moving your own place of residence, it is not something that is done very often, if at all.
Also, for a blockchain that is afraid of losing their assets and thus not wanting to participate, there will need to be methods created for a onetime exit from that chain. However that is a oneway move (until that blockchain supports importing external assets), so not one to be made lightly.
From what I can tell, all existing decentralized asset systems support exporting already, not specifically as such, but if an asset can be burned, it can be exported using a burn protocol
This appears to be a form of meta-decentralization, where the decentralized assets can be spread across multiple blockchains, yet retain their fixed supply. While the relatively small number of host blockchains makes it more like a distributed model, since each blockchain is decentralized (we hope!) maybe that property infused into the distributed aspect.
Regardless of its exact taxonomy in this space, what is clear is that having a passport to travel is much better than not having one.
James