Yeah, I get that using a new token for this sucks. But I don’t see an alternative except locking a BTC collateral up with escrow, which is worse, because it is not trustless.
Projects like Thorchain try to use massive-multisig custody in order to model "BTC locked until arbitrary outside conditions are met" – but really it’s just the same, the Thorchain can at any point defect with the Bitcoin you have locked up in it.

The $TRADE token is not meant to be a BTC-competing cryptocurrency.
One angle that would serve to make that very clear is to use a 1:1 USD-backed token.
So, some venture raises $1 Billion USD to launch a trade chain. Anybody can buy into that chain by exchanging USD for $TRADE. (Could even be KYC’d and all.)
Now the trade chain works nicely, traders can join anonymously by spending BTC to get $TRADE from KYC’d traders.
In order to cash out your $TRADE for USD again, perhaps you have to pay a 4% fee and also go through KYC.

In this design, it’s clear that 1 $TRADE will always be worth around 1 USD: It’s not a speculative asset.

Of course, this instance of the trade chain would be limited to $1 Billion USD collateral capacity.
But a competitor could raise $2 Billion and launch another instance of the chain. Now there’s $3 Billion overall, both chains can easily be arbitraged between – nice.