Great answer thanks!  I personally think inscriptions are quite bad, because there is some "tragedy of the commons" there, and it can be viewed as an attack, when using adversarial thinking.

That being the case, the whole of ordinals suffers from that taint.  And Runes, while just a short 80 byte OP_RETURN, does not bloat the chain too much, they suffer from the taint being adjacent and part of ordinals.

There is some nice code in there, and a decent eco system of wallets, markets, websites, explorers and so on.  All built on bitcoin.  There is some nice game theory around minting, and they have some things like domain names, which are ok.  Mainly I think it's all a bit silly, harmless, but some good lessons to learn.

I do think your idea of digitally native equity on bitcoin is a really good one.  Needs more thought and more build and an audience and appetite which is currently very small, but could grow in time.

I think when the world of AI meets these kinds of ideas, we can get more interesting dynamics, so I think this is going to be an interesting space to explore both from markets POV, and orchestration POV.  

I'm playing around with rewriting Runes (its a small library) and using it on bitcoin testnet, combining it with nostr.  Doing things like on chain zaps, equities, a few games, autonomous agents and so on.  Possibly there is some innovation buried deep in there.  What I think is exciting is that new ways of "playing" with bitcoin are emerging, without bloating the chain, that could generate positive unintended consequences.

Use case I'd like to see is honest DAOs on bitcoin where you can invest a few sats in an open source project, and get services, or dividends, and so on ...