shouldn't the addresses and amounts that emerge onto SC be reflected/displayed/shown within its blockchain?
I would hope not. I see no reason for it and a bunch of reasons to not have it. I would like to see things be such that the native Bitcoin network neither knows about nor cares about nor is loaded in any way more than a sidechain being just another user.
Of course Bitcoin is an open network so various kinds of analysis could probably elucidate a lot about what users (individual and group proxys like a sidechain) might be up to.
so what is the point of MM'ing the SC to begin with then? isn't a blockchain (SC in this case) supposed to verify the integrity of what's going on? might as well keep a secret ledger on a central server maintained by Karpeles.
I clarified a bit as an edit.
I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.
none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.
SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC
) 
Nicely put.