This is a quick late night post in response to a tweet by 
https://twitter.com/oAcido/status/1554191593753968640
- oAcido
I just want to explain some of the ideas that informed early Bitcoin maximalism, which seem to have disappeared in the mists of time. Although I am sure you can find this discussed on old Bitcointalk and Reddit posts.
Because each network is self governing, they are each effectively domains of sovereignty with separate units of account and fundamental limitations on the degree of potential interoperability (merging networks).
We shall take it for granted that Metcalfe's Law is true, the value of a network is directly proportional to the number of potentially connected users.
In the first scenario, suppose there are 10 projects, each with 10 users. The network value of each project is 45 (the number of network connections).
Also, our total investment would bring in 10 users, divided as we choose among the networks.
Pluralist/diversification approach: +1 user to each network. The network value of each project goes from 45 to 55. With 10 projects, the total increase in network value is 100.
Maximalist approach: +10 user to 1 network. The network value of 9 projects remains unchanged, while a single project goes from 45 to 190. The total increase in network value across all projects is 145.
This is the simplified basis of crypto maximalism. If everyone is investing their time, energy and capital into a single project, the power of building one large network effect is eventually vastly more than when people divide their efforts across a number of smaller network projects. In fact I would argue that this is the primary reason why Bitcoin (and the US Dollar) is so hard to dislodge from the #1 spot on coinmarketcap.com, the simple math of having the largest network makes its overall value much higher than smaller networks, despite anything else - including technical superiority/inferiority.
