That is true, but the principle of the gold standard is still as valid as ever before.

If you have an altcoin that is being backed up by the amount of x bitcoin, it would naturally have the same value as that amount of bitcoin. I still don't see how it's not possible? An automatic "bank-exchange" that stores a reserve of bitcoin and an altcoin wallet that have the function of redeeming your altcoins for bitcoin.

The only thing I see stopping it is trust of the altcoin being able to manipulate the reserves of bitcoin. Surely it can't be impossible to code a contract that states that there can only be x alts for every btc, or vice versa? What have I missed?

How come there is no cryptocurrency pegged to the value of Bitcoin but with superior transferability?

Compare with the gold standard. Most people would never actually cash in their banknotes to get gold, because gold is awkward and unpractical to use in daily life (kind of like bitcoin). The fact that you are guaranteed the notes value in gold makes a bank note much more practical and almost as reliable.

There are tons of cryptoes out there, but most of them are (to me) worthless since they are not following the value of bitcoin or any other storage of value. At the same time Bitcoin is far too slow to make daily life transactions. Can't a contract be made to guarantee an 1-x conversion rate, or what?

Couldn't a more cost efficient technology bridge them, like a currency using DAG (or whatever) for a daily-use currency? Very few people store their bitcoin on an exchange because it's not as secure, but I still bet most of us bought or sold bitcoins and therefore at some point stored them on an exchange for a short amount of time.

Why are no other currencies using bitcoin as a store of value?