At first, our solution appears to be not good enough. Having one currency for everybody seems to be the ideal way. But note that clustering is a common technology in computing and it is now widely used. There is simply no hardware capable of writing 56,000 transactions per second on a single node. When the problem can't be solved on a single computer (and Ethereum is a computer, but virtual), it has to be distributed between many computers. Dividing has known as a successful strategy for ages, and it is not going to fail us.
In our opinion inventing a scalable solution for a single blockchain is as impossible, as inventing a perpetual motion machine in the 17 century, which was confirmed by physicists later as indeed impossible. It seems that blockchain technology is in a similar situation right now. You will be trying one algorithm after another, but after conducting experiments, you will discover that it doesn't work. The road to blockchain scalability by scaling a single blockchain is closed. Multiple parallel blockchains is the way to go. It is simple, it is reliable, it is easy to implement, it is just the pill that we have to take right now.
Then, why our solution wasn't implemented earlier if it is so easy to do? Because of inflation. By splitting Ethereum, say, into 2 networks you will lose the value on the first blockchian, and its currency would depreciate. On the other (new) blockchain it would start appreciating. It is like you would instantly apply a 100% inflation. People would sell Ethers of the first network, and buy Ethers of the second network expecting to make profits on the rise in price. Nobody wants to lose money, so this solution is a no-no for a currency that already has high valuation. But for us, it is not an issue. We are (yet) unknown project that was born two weeks ago, and we have nothing to lose. Instead, we have a lot to win when Ethereum's users start seeking cheaper transaction fees. This is why neither Bitcoin nor Ethereum are going to use this strategy to scale their chains.
But you should not see our project as a threat to Ethereum's price trend. Because it has already limited itself by the scalability problem. How can the price go higher if there is no room to grow? You would probably see a price increase (if any) on the linear scale, but not on the logarithmical.
Now, just to clear things out. We are not saying that we are going to create copies of Ethereum one after another, and flood the market with cheap copies of Ether-like currency. We have a commitment right now, to grow our first network until it is widely accepted and reaches considerable transaction level. if no transaction bottleneck exists, neither we are interested in devaluing our network #1 by creating network #2. But eventually network #1 will become congested, and we will have to create a network for the cycle 2. Whether you like it or not, there is no other way to scale right now.
Another important point, about speculative money, which can flow into our nodes of networks of Ethereum copies. The presence of speculators is not a bad sign for currency, but a good one. It shows that the currency is valuable and that it has potential for appreciation. The speculators also add liquidity to financial instruments. Thanks to speculators you can sell or buy the instrument at any time and you don't have to pay large spreads. The speculators also add stability to the price, by reducing volatility. When the price of the instrument drops they buy dips, when the price rises, they sell and the price falls. So the speculators sort of smooth the curve of fluctuation of the currency in times of low or high demand. Speculative money is healthy for any financial instrument, and it is always welcomed in financial markets.
This is why we believe that speculative money is not going to do harm to our network-nodes, on the contrary it is a big help. This money will prepare the blockchain at the beginning, make it computationally stronger , rise the price and this way make the network ready to be used by the users.