Bitcoin's problem is that, since it's controlled by the miners, they're unlikely to change the issuance rules. Adequate security can be had at a far lower cost, but that's a change that would damage their investment in mining hardware, so the miners will never do it.
I hope one day we start valuing abstractions based on the desirability of their externalities. After such a shift, bitcoin will look pretty silly--who would want use waste-electricity-coin when they could instead use capture-carbon-coin or go-to-mars-coin? But it would seem that we're not there yet.
I used to work for a company which later got bought by Fiserv (a large payments provider). I had these headaches re: transaction data. Wrote a lot of SQL to reconcile the pairwise sync problem. I tried to convince them that this is a problem for a blockchain, but I grew impatient and left.
So I'd say that it has caught on, just in a way that doesn't involve the users' preferences as much as I'd like. Because it's not like Fiserv is going to let their end users transact with any of the other assets on Solana. They'll wrap it in an interface that just calls it "$" and the user will be none the wiser.
