They wouldn't have an inherently higher survivorship, but it would be toxic to predators, wiping them out (either directly by toxicity, or indirectly by starvation), at the same time as growing and spreading further. Natural evolution itself is unlikely to develop an organism capable of metabolizing mirror sugars, fats, proteins.
So this means people have to take an active role in eradicating this life form, if it ever comes to be.
Recently it was proven possible to construct an organism through synthetic processes. This is still limited to very close copies of the real things, but could be adapted to produce reverse chiral molecules.
Edit: Although, the added difficulty would be the need to reconstruct a cell completely out of mirror molecules for it to work. In the case above, the genome was injected into an existing cell and left to replicate. So it's not quite a trivial thing to do.
Even if predators can't metabolize the mirror molecules, they can still eat them (possibly dying afterwards). So you'd need to release the mirror algae(
?) in very large quantities for them to overcome the predatory pressures in their environment.
It also means that by killing predators (zoo-plankton), mirror algae are creating a niche for standard algae too. So you could end up with a soup of R and L life, but diminished predatory activity.
You may want to have a payment processor as a backup solution, they will provide their own APIs to their services. Relying on PayPal alone can be risky.
The question should be: "Why doesn't C have a string data type?" C only considers a pointer to a char, it's the programmers' fault they treat this structure like a string.
It's yet another "command economy simulator", probably not very different from the models used by our central bankers. That is, if they indeed rely on models and not nakedly trying to enrich or prop up the big banks.
There is nothing special about credit and money, they are goods and services that arise naturally from market interactions. Having central banks "in charge of the free markets" is self-contradictory.