First of all, I would like to state that ICON having an EVM compatible side-chain is probably the best strategic move, it is also way overdue and should have been implemented from very early on, so we could have been in a position where projects like Matic/Polygon are now.
For those who don’t know, $ICX is the governance token for ICE blockchain, but transaction fees for the blockchain are paid in a new currency called $ICE.
This is an utterly useless case, not only does this not make sense because it does not seem to be collateral for POS nodes, but it reduces the demand on $ICX. I imagine ICE blockchain will be a lot more active than ICON due to the ease of solidity dapps being forked on to ICE, rather than having to compile contracts on to the main chain.
Take AVAX for example, it has 3 chains, which all use the same token $AVAX - even if wrapping is needed.
This is the same example that ICON should be following to put more demand and usage on $ICX token, by making wrapped $ICX (through BTP) the native token of ICE, rather than creating two tokens.
If this is not the case, I hope someone can fork ICE and alter it to make BTP wrapped $ICX the native token.