That's what I've thought. It's so much easier for a scammer to create a new token on the BCH blockchain than doing so on Ethereum. The latter requires some knowledge in the field of Computer Science to be able to successfully create a working product (in this case, an ERC-20 token). I have a feeling that we'll be seeing more useless tokens on the BCH blockchain than on Ethereum itself. The BCH dev team should've designed a new programming language specifically for token creation/execution (like Ethereum) in order to reduce scams as much as possible. That's why I prefer to deal with Ethereum's ERC-20 token standard than anything else. Top-notch crypto projects and mainstream businesses/companies will definitely use the Ethereum platform over Bitcoin Cash.
One thing for sure is that the BCH blockchain has far more TX capacity than Ethereum itself. This means that SLP tokens will be able to perform as intended without disruptions or high costs unlike ERC-20 tokens living on the Ethereum blockchain. For some people, this seems to be the way to go as it provides convenience above anything else. For others, the ERC-20 token standard is the way to go because of its censorship-resistant properties (thanks to the way the Ethereum blockchain was designed). In all ends, Bitcoin Cash is sacrificing decentralization over scalability, while Ethereum sacrifices scalability over decentralization. Depending on one's needs (scalability or decentralization) will be the token standard to use. But the majority has chosen Ethereum, which explains why ERC-20 tokens have greater support than SLP tokens. Just my thoughts