Yes, in this scenario Atom might not be worth much. It is a very similar scenario to this: “After the first person found out how to copy the codebase of Bitcoin and give it a different name, a lot of different Bitcoins emerged, spreading the whole space with a lot of other blockchains with the same behavior as Bitcoin, making the Nakamoto Consensus a huge success, but leaving very little value for BTC”. Or another very similar scenario: “After Ethereum demonstrated how to have smart contracts on the blockchain, a lot of other projects also included smart contracts into their codebase, so very little value was left for ETH.”
So for some strange reason, these scenarios did not really unfold for Bitcoin or Ethereum. Even though it would be totally possible. Users can just go and use Bitcoin cash, or Bitcoin SV or Bitcoin Diamond or Bitcoin IDontCareIFork and so on. But somehow they prefer the first mover and not the x copycat.

Another perspective:
https://medium.com/osmosis/vision-for-osmosis-e68e796ff1c2
Osmosis has laid out its vision in the meantime and the would like to do Shared Security with the Cosmos hub. This is pretty much what I explained in the section of compatibility, that some dApps need high security from an already big validator base. Cosmos hub can offer that and it makes it more similar to Polkadot. It does not force the developers to do shared security with Cosmos, but if you want to, you can have it. I think this makes more sense, since a project, that doesn’t need/want it, wont just say “ok, well we have to buy a slot for a parachain, so let’s do it” but rather “well then let’s just use one of the other technologies, where we don’t need to do that”…