Many if not all Drivechain proponents consider drivechains more secure than the centralized or federated systems people use today (CEXes, fedimints, federated sidechains, statechains, etc) and think Bitcoiners should be able to opt-in to this new security model. Maybe drivechains are not secure enough for life savings but secure enough for a right-sized portion of the stack to get some extra features e.g. vault-style covenants, or stronger privacy, or new L2 protocols like Ark, or whatever else users want. As a point of comparison, few people would suggest Lightning is secure enough for life savings but it may be worth the risk to users to deposit some right-sized portion of the stack to earn routing fees or make cheap, fast payments. So is Lightning, or the soft forks that enabled it, a distraction? I think not, and the same logic applies to Drivechain.

(As a technical point, note that in the case of a soft fork, some minority of resistance can be tolerated, since the change is backward compatible.)