I have to think about this to really answer with the depth of feedback that this idea requires, but for now as its 1am on New Years: I agree that a layer vs side chain is the way to go. A side chain is more centralized and requires more oversight efforts in order to ensure its quality (of its infrastructure) is up to acceptable standards. It requires a lot of coordination if attempts to decentralize are made. A layer is by default expected to take on the quality of the core protocol, meaning its infrastructure is expected to be of due quality and no extra running around is needed. I don't know about Typescript. That wouldn't have been my choice. I also don't agree in regards to the priority of work. I would have had all the backend work, testing and functionality completed first and then have worried about interacting through frontend tools.
I think this is a good thing to sketch out on Visio. Just thinking, I'm wondering if HIVE stakeholders will have any incentive to also hold large sums of the token if said token will be generated by their HIVE. Meaning, they'd hold it through generating it but not through investment in it directly (they're already invested in HIVE). It would kind of play out like the account credits where they become stacked and used as needed but not optimally distributed to maximum utility. I have to think about this some more in order to do this idea justice.