Interestingly, I find the prospect of a fork compelling. Reminds me a lot of the DAO hack on Ethereum, and well - we have Ethereum Classic and Ethereum 2.0. When it happened a “stock split” of sorts occurred. Ethereum Classic chugged right along producing blocks with the effects of “code is law” and Ethereum returned the hacked funds back to investors and recently made it’s transition to PoS, which gave Ethereum owners another “stock split” with EthPoW.
Ethereum:
-
Ethereum Classic
-
Ethereum 2.0
-
Ethereum PoW
Basically there are parallels to events we have seen in the blockchain industry, and I think it should be noted to anyone contemplating these proposals that this equates to your current holdings being amplified into these different ideological directions the Cosmos ecosystem could go in. We can not predict the success or failure of one or the other, but if there are engineers aligned to the development of the protocols in these different ideological directions - it’s not much different than launching a new zone. The bonus for stakers is - your current holdings would be represented in each developmental effort. What I mean when I say that we cannot predict the failure or success - who will hold and who will dump “stock splits”? Which ideological direction will create the most value for early participants and the future of ecosystem? One will come out on top.
My vote would be to fork, and stakers should understand the benefits of this.
That being said…in any of the prescribed ecosystems, my biggest desire is interoperability with traditional systems. Quickly drafted a summary to accomplish this, but it could be turned into a more formal proposal instead of being shared in the forum as miscellaneous or conversation. Fortunately/Unfortunately I have stayed current with regulatory direction provided for my region, and have made conscious decisions based on this guidance. It is possible the industry as a whole gets the regulatory direction - and slashing, from their respective regulatory bodies. (Note the “stock splits” nomenclature, and terms like “dividends” that are used generously throughout discussions about ATOM 2.0)
Does anyone suppose there will be a penalty to come into compliance with the guidance of international regulatory bodies, and should this not be taken into consideration and discussed by participants?
Bitcoin too from: Wikipedia:
Hard forks splitting bitcoin (aka “split coins”) are created via changes of the blockchain rules and sharing a transaction history with bitcoin up to a certain time and date. The first hard fork splitting bitcoin happened on 1 August 2017, resulting in the creation of Bitcoin Cash.
The following is a list of notable hard forks splitting bitcoin by date and/or block:
- Bitcoin Cash: Forked at block 478558, 1 August 2017, for each bitcoin (BTC), an owner got 1 Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
- Bitcoin SV: Forked at block 556766, 15 November 2018, for each Bitcoin Cash (BCH), an owner got 1 Bitcoin SV (BSV).
- eCash: Forked at block 661648, 15 November 2020, for each Bitcoin Cash (BCH), an owner got 1,000,000 eCash (XEC).
- Bitcoin Gold: Forked at block 491407, 24 October 2017, for each bitcoin (BTC), an owner got 1 Bitcoin Gold (BTG)