There are sometimes ideas that look simple and effective, but after closer look are neither simple, nor effective (no offence intended). But let me elaborate.
While I find some Peter Shiff remarks interesting, in general I consider his views as being fairly naive. But let's assume his stance is genuinely non-partisan (which is not) and his conclusion about cryptocurrencies and internal competition valid (even if based only on common sense and no actual hard data).

I could port Bitcoin to Bitlattice with no big effort. It poses however multiple issues that aren't of technical nature.

First of all, such attempts were made with other mechanisms. As you may have noticed, they never performed very well. This stems from a simple fact that the ecosystem Bitcoin is consists of a vast set of different groups of interest. Some commercially motivated, some gov led, some probably with even stranger motiations. I know this setup and hardly would like to dive in it. Because ultimately you end up as a tool.

Maybe not as important as the above, but such operation would involve months of pointless arguments and groups of interest pushing from all sides. Which I find neither productive nor beneficial for Bitlattice itself.

To sum all up - if presented with constructive and reasonable proposal by guys able to deal with all side shit I will certainly consider such fork or clone. Given however that such situation is unlikely to happen I doubt that I'll invest my time to make such fork concurrently with Bitlattice itself. Maybe later, as a side thing.

Ps I find you in September, unless it's different Arsène