There's a lot of reasons for the next probable chain splits, but one of the greatest problems that can create from Bitcoin Cash are the network upgrades and the problem of a reference client.
The thing with the latest chainsplit is ironically a thing in the Bitcoin white paper called Nakamoto Consensus, where if the miners (and the community) decide to not implement a thing, the developers must back down and not implement it.
ABC, in a fit of idiocy, decided to implement a rule that has already been rejected in the May 2020 upgrade, and made it far worse.
Take note that this is a problem on itself on two fronts: The developer funding and also the fact of modifying a part of the ancient respected code.
The second one is the result of the first.
Because Amaury Séchet doesn't want to get donations and want a piece of the fund that miners have historically received in full
That's one of the reasons of the chainsplit last November, but my opinion for a next possible chainsplit will be on who will control a decentralized multi-node blockchain, and if ABC will attempt to retaliate because they lost reference node status due to a negative consensus.
How? The six-month network upgrade schedule.
You see, BCHN removed the IFP and began improving the ABC client afterward. One of them is removing the forced 6-month upgrade and replace it in a more sensible upgrade schedule.
Granted, if Bitcoin ABC decided to abandon their non-IFP code and submit to becoming BHA/BCHA/BAB permanently, it will now be a reason of having cooperation.
If BCHN goes rogue, another chainsplit is guranteed. If Bitcoin Unlimited goes rogue, another chainsplit is guranteed. If ABC attempts takeover, a chainsplit might happen.
Shortly, in my opinion: As long as the status quo of unified multi-node system is still stable and no malicious events happen, no chainsplit.
Hope that no more chain splits divide the community further...