The main basis for the claim comes down to evidence of network effects available to quality projects sporting an ERC-20 token. I gave an overview of some of these positive feedback loop benefits in this post above but you could almost take your pick of which angle to measure this effect by. If you have a speculative decentralised project and wish to connect with investors and developers that are interested in that kind of tech, then ERC-20 appears to be where it is at, by far(*). For example I suggested checking out the number of traditional exchanges/liquidity currently available to similar calibre projects to Safe. However thanks to supporting infrastructure many do not have to bother with an exchange and just use one of the plentiful in-wallet ERC-20 swap services. Easy and straight forward investment and if I am a developer, what is this Safecoin(ERC-20) project anyway I might check it out.
(*) “By far” Statement based on market liquidity chart linked in above post, and number of actively developed projects using ERC-20 also linked above. Which means more supporting infrastructure such as decentralised liquidity provision services and wallets for many niche markets, which attracts more investors and projects, etc etc.
So to turn this around: With so much evidence of network effects in play in the ERC-20 ecosystem, why are you discounting it here? If we want developers and investors interested in speculative decentralised projects then how is entering into the main market for both those interest groups not going to benefit Safe Network development?