There's no bubble to burst. When it comes to technology, the best one to use is the appropriate one (in a holistical context) for the application. Unnecessary gold plating and complexity doesn't necessarily win - and can ruin reliability, affordability, availability and maintainability at the same time.
You really need to buy a ZR-1, then have an electronic valve controller box fail on that foreign engine. Try and buy one 20 years from now - at any price. Ain't happening. You got a dead engine. No aftermarket support...
One thing that is under-appreciated about American engineering: being able to maintain a car at reasonable cost. In that respect, that is what makes things like Ferrari's, Lambos and Porsches inferior; and at the same time American muscle often does a pretty good job of stacking up well to most of them in performance too - often at 1/3rd or less of the price.
Like I said, a simple, cheap, longer stroke on our 16 valve small blocks more than equalled those extra ZR-1 valves, cams lifters and fancy electronic valve controls at the dragstrip - beat 'em over and over again...
Smokey Yunick did a lot of testing with 4 valve prototype heads on Chevy engines and came to the conclusion that two large valves were every bit as good as 4 little ones at the RPMs that they were running (9000 and under) in NASCAR.
Beyond that, yes you probably do need 4 valves per cylinder. But few are turning a small block chevy at 9000 rpm on the street. The ZR-1 was redlined just slightly more than the 16 valve engines, so forget about 9000. It was a highly compromised design. I will say that they could have done it better/right, but didn't. It ended up insignificantly better than the stock engine. So my lack of admiration for the ZR-1 is for the product that they actually produced - not the product that they MIGHT have produced...