Sure, as I already addressed in both of the threads that I linked to, some people do not care for writing in Markdown without software changing how that process works in some fashion (syntax highlighting, typing aids, etc.). And I do get that, even I’m not myself as adamant about it.
@November_Sierra : (Sure, one could apply both to the text to achieve this, but that’s not going to survive external folder sync in both directions, which is likely the prime use case for attempting something like that.)
And you noted, how Scrivener works need not be a hindrance to adopting Scrivener into your workflow, rather than replacing the workflow entirely. One of the (massive) advantages of using plain-text markup to write, instead of word processors (or their conventions), is that it lowers the friction between software to zero. I could hop on an AlphaSmart for some portable writing, then offload that to Scrivener, then fire up Sublime alongside it do some editing, without any lossy conversion needing to be done. And of course once I’m done with that, I can use Pandoc seamlessly to produce high-quality output, or just produce raw Markdown and keep my output as agile as it always has been.
The premise of the OP seems to be to migrate from Obsidian to Scrivener. They have their motivations for doing so, and I won’t question them, but that isn’t something one must do, thanks to Markdown being capable of effortlessly crossing all software boundaries.
There are many writers who use who tools like Obsidian and Scrivener together, precisely because they make for a really good workflow; they augment each other with their own unique strengths. For example, it is a good system if you like to write with colour-coded text but want a heavy-duty text assembly platform around that. Other people use other editors with Scrivener seamlessly (even Ulysses!)—it’s not hard to do, and if you really feel super strongly about your asterisks being bright red or grey or whatever, instead of black, there you go.
It is an option, one needn’t work that way, they can do everything in Scrivener’s text editor as well. That is surely what I do most often. I only set up a sync folder setup so I can use additional tools for certain kinds of writing projects, where bringing those to bear against the text is beneficial.
Now for the more subjective argument, as for where I am coming from, the wording in my first paragraph is a big clue…
…I’m one of those people that uses Markdown to write because I don’t care for rich text editing in the first place.
It’s not the Markdown itself that is the primary impetus to use markup while writing, it’s how inadequate I feel a rich text writing environment is for writing as a core philosophy. For design and layout, sure okay, but trying to mix that with writing has always been puzzling to me, and I don’t understand the appeal. That was my first reaction to Word, with all of its bluster about how “no codes” was somehow an improvement.
So in other words, if Markdown did not exist, I would probably be writing the way I was before the simplified markup concept came along: raw LaTeX… with very little syntax highlighting or typing aids at that!
Perhaps these examples will put into perspective why I myself don’t care if Scrivener does much or nothing with Markdown in the editor:
How AmberV wrote in 2001
\chapter{Name of Chapter}
Whik gronk; thung \emph{epp rintax whik} jince dwint srung sernag nix la quolt sernag brul jince. Twock, quolt whik tharn dri cree gen...
\begin{itemize}
\item Prinquis nix delm velar rhull korsa ti epp su rintax lydran irpsa, kurnap re menardis.
\item Ma ozlint ju wynlarce gronk ma.
\item Cree clum la wex frimba zeuhl.
\end{itemize}
Velar menardis, wynlarce furng berot furng gen. Thung er wynlarce wex tolaspa, srung morvit galph. Gen athran morvit... korsa, morvit menardis kurnap rintax velar.
To me, that’s a fine and workable writing environment—LaTeX was after all designed as a tool for writers. So when the following came along in the mid-2000’s, I only saw it as an upgrade to that basic idea of writing with clear markup, only without the extra keystrokes and unnecessary space spent on markup:
How AmberV wrote after finding Markdown
# Name of Chapter
Whik gronk; thung *epp rintax whik* jince dwint srung sernag nix la quolt sernag brul jince. Twock, quolt whik tharn dri cree gen...
* Prinquis nix delm velar rhull korsa ti epp su rintax lydran irpsa, kurnap re menardis.
* Ma ozlint ju wynlarce gronk ma.
* Cree clum la wex frimba zeuhl.
Velar menardis, wynlarce furng berot furng gen. Thung er wynlarce wex tolaspa, srung morvit galph. Gen athran morvit... korsa, morvit menardis kurnap rintax velar.
@nontroppo : Honestly, using the RTF engine as a pimped up semantic grappling hook is why Scrivener, as a markdown editor, rules the markup multiverse.
Although I think we take that concept to different degrees, I can’t disagree with that. I do use styles here and there, where they benefit me, but to be perfectly honest I see that more as a second-best than what the best solution would be. For myself anyway, the best solution would be a program that lets you design your markup on the fly.
Pandoc comes very close to that (especially if you can program a bit), but its base solution is still a bit bulkier than I feel Markdown’s ethos strives toward—it tends a bit more toward the raw LaTeX verbosity. For example, I could do something [like this]{.menu-command} to expand Markdown’s basic semantics into a work-specific local syntax, but is that actually any better than \menuCommand{like this}? Debateable! What would be ideal is if I could type in something {{like this}} and tell the software that when exporting to LaTeX it should produce the second example, and when exporting to Markdown the first example, and when exporting to HTML, <span class="menu-command">like this</span> and so on.
Instead we have styles, which produce that same effect in the end, but doing so using the conventions of rich text writing, which for me isn’t ideal. I would rather visible markup than “menu command” being a different colour or something, and having to click around into differently coloured phrases and squint at toolbars to fathom the overall semantics of the text five years later.
So while I do use styles in Scrivener to expand markup effortlessly, it’s a second-best solution for me, and although it is possible, I wouldn’t dream of replacing all markup with styles. That’s just me though, and my strong preference for *visible* markup being as important to the reading and writing experience as the text it applies structure to—as an ethos.
That’s why I don’t really “get” Markdown editors that try so hard to hide the Markdown, too. 
For what advantages I choose plain-text markup for, it counters the very essence of that choice—and doubtlessly colours how I tend toward using Scrivener more as a pure Markdown editor.
In fact it is the best of multiple world, because you can also compile without markdown and still get some of the visual identification from the editor to the end document via the RTF.
