I believe that in due time there will be a window of opportunity that I call "the third option." It will appear only momentarily, only to be realized if key players allow it to flourish. And this third option could be one of the greatest things that can ever happen to BCH.
It could solve the problems of the split. It could be the path to better governance. It could retain infrastructure, developers and miners. It can bring back antifragile stability to the BCH ecosystem and kick Bitcoin Cash's scalability to high gear before a finalized split tears through projects, developers and user morale. So what is the third option?

_____________

TL;DR
The third option could take place over the period of only a few weeks after November 15th, at which point things are still very unclear about BCH's future. It is the point at which BitcoinABC realizes they have a lot to lose in terms of network effect- the tainting of their name, the BCH brand, and the loss of businesses, projects and people who feel like they've had enough. It is the point at which BCHN will realize that given their "longest chain" philosophy and underdog standing, that they may not be in the best position to carry out the future of p2p money (roadmap or not). That the market of ideas for who should decide what and how under a totally decentralized community project will quickly rear its ugly head, causing only greater problems in the future.

Whereas BitcoinABC may crash and burn spectacularly, BCHN will cause a slow death of confusion and tamed-chaos. Put succinctly, after November 15th both sides will have a moment of clarity amidst the ensuing ecosystem disorder, potentially understanding that a no-split, better terms for everyone situation may actually be the best path forward.

_____________

I'll make my stance very clear:

I think BitcoinABC was, is and will be a net positive for BCH. They can still be critical for BCH's long term success by helping it scale faster and better (which will undoubtedly be very important in the next few years). They have always been invested in BCH as a viable, real world solution since day 0. They have toiled along holding the shit end of the stick and kept the lights on. But they need to improve their reputation and Amaury needs to work on himself as a cooperator and "provider of value" within an ecosystem. Their reputation as amicable market participants is abysmal and I have a hard time believing that the merit of the product will "win out in the end." It sounds nice when reading it in a book about economics, but hardly describes the messiness of the real world. If businesses and builders find their incentives aren't taken seriously and good people get burnt out by a prevailing narrative of hostility, the network will limp along until an almost-good-enough alternative zooms past it. ABC's "we know best and we do best" mentality is Usain Bolt with blisters on his feet. If that's hard for you to agree with your problem is one of either ego, politics, or improper development foresight. You may stop reading now. Your judgement is cloudy.

I also think that BCHN and other players within the ecosystem have many good points. Their concerns about ABC "capture" of the BCH ecosystem are valid (whether nefarious or not, intended or unintended is frankly irrelevant). Their critique of a one-sided IFP implementation and more reserved attitude to adoption of protocol changes/incorporation of technologies are important as BCH wrestles the merits of different components to what will pave the way to future p2p money for the world. There are also talented individuals involved. But they're riding on hopes of a better future without any sort of proper structure like having all the materials to build a house without the blue print. "Well we know what a house looks like, we have what we need and we know how to build, so there's no problem." That statement could be true...except for the last part. Problems arise, oftentimes, exactly from those places where issues seem trivial or seem to be "figured out" prematurely. The ball is already rolling- even if BCHN succeeds in having the ticker and most of the "community" on their side, it may already be too late. A huge weight of responsibility and power will fall on their shoulders and even if a roadmap comes out, many internal issues will spring up, quickly. If that's hard for you to agree with your problem is one of either ego, politics, or improper development foresight. You may stop reading now. Your judgement is cloudy.

I'll get to the third option, I promise. But first, some housekeeping:

You don't have to agree with me on the outcome or best path forward, but both sides have been more concerned with disgust for their rival then actually providing good solutions.

a) What started as ABC saying "we've been trying to cooperate for years, but we have not been financially compensated and so are taking this approach as a last ditch effort" has somehow turned into "this is for the best. We're getting rid of dead weight and can finally take BCH to where it needs to be for future p2p money."

Uh, then what have you been doing the past 3 years? I'm not discrediting the roadblocks and hardships of the past 3 years, but there was unspoken agreement of the status quo. You were the reference client. If you couldn't bring enough value to BCH to make ABC profitable enough until now, this pivot to saying "money will solve our problems" is really a partial admittance that translates to this: "1. we haven't been able to do it alone and 2. we have successfully alienated others from collaborating with us effectively to pick up some of the heavy lifting. So instead, our plan is to strong arm money from the coinbase and use it as an IOU-value proposition to developers enticed by the prospective future value of BCH."

Can it work? Maybe. But it's a pretty unfortunate strategy to use and builds a shaky foundation for the future building of the BCH ecosystem. Aligned economic incentives are good. Aligned economic incentives along with healthy collaborative spirit and genuine enthusiasm for positive outcomes in the space are much better. Do not assume you can't achieve the latter. If you go full steam ahead with the IFP and the vicious gatekeeping of BCH, you are only further deteriorating the chances of a healthier, more inviting ecosystem which equals better chances for increasing network effect and value.

b) What started as BCHN saying "we're a grassroots effort to provide a viable alternative to ABC and bring more decentralization" has turned into "we are the answer to the problems ABC has created. We are the future of BCH, come along for the ride." The answer to culture is counter-culture. But counter-culture's main utility is to shine a light on the problem and provide first steps to workable solutions, not destroy the culture and take up the space of the void. It just becomes its own culture (one that was essentially built on a flurry of ideas and attitudes that stem from a philosophy of "but not that.")

What are your solutions? As time goes on, the BCHN team is only providing hollow solutions. "we're open to changes, but need enough time and familiarity to decide what those changes will be." That's fine, but how will you decide them? And what if you don't? Will keeping BCH purity stall the progress of p2p cash? What if it becomes uneconomic for miners? The more one considers the potential points of failure, the more one can imagine the life of BCH leaving the network because of too much action that breeds inaction. The enemy of a good plan is a perfect plan.

Okay okay, we get it. Things don't look so great. So whats the third option and can it really help?

Do not be discouraged! BCH still has a lot going for it.

The third option comes after the first two, which are:
1. A majority of hashrate staying with ABC
2. A majority of hashrate going to BCHN
There are more options (like a near 50/50 split), but I do not believe them to be particularly strong long term solutions.

The third option is one that is uncomfortable for both sides as it requires them to admit their own faults and make concessions. It is not easy, but it is necessary.

The only way to make the third option an actual possibility is to prepare for it. When the third option presents itself, both sides will need to have actionable steps. For ABC, this may mean outlining that they want a return to the status quo where they are viewed as the reference client with greater weight in the decision making process. However, they will have to concede to not make unilateral decisions without some sort of collaborative first proposal. They should also be more involved in the developments of other projects and individual contributors. These concessions can be mediated by some key people that Amaury respects, even if he disagrees with them. They're probably the best litmus test for ABC's nearsightedness.
For BCHN, this could mean demanding IFP changes that will drastically change the imbalance they feel it brought to BCH. They can also outline what sort of transparency they expect from ABC to better plan for the future of BCH. However, they will have to concede to some sort of return to the status quo. The counter-culture hostility needs to be channeled to a place of checks-and-balances, not revolution. They will need to create better cooperation, not worse.

But i'm still not sure how this helps? And why should either side be incentivized to collaborate if they'll have majority hashrate/the ticker already?

These are both basically the same question. The truth is, regardless of who "comes out on top," it is in the best interest of EVERYONE to keep the network whole. Even if one side has majority hashrate, they'll present a lopsided view of what BCH actually is and other crypto projects will just keep laughing at us, turning "BCH irrelevance" into a reality. No side will come out unscathed and each project will still be left to deal with all of the work that is maintaining, onboarding, etc.
I'll say it again here. If BCH can accomplish even half of its stated goal in the next 3-5 years, there will be enough free market participants that nodes, businesses, developers and essentially everyone else will have more than enough room to decide who they want to associate with and who they don't want to deal with. Worst case scenario, if there is another schism in a few years years (assuming everything else panned out more or less as planned), BCH market share will be so large that even if did split to two different projects, they'd both have enough reputation and standing in the market to not dilute themselves out of valuable utility (which can very easily happen now).

Even after all this time, I still have not found any objective reasons why ABC and BCHN can't satisfy their demands, or at least most of them. They are both to blame.

This was very long and I skimmed most of it. What's the summary?

Here it is:

"where we are":

• ABC is good, but lacking.

• BCHN is good, but lacking.

• IFP is a band aid on a gunshot wound.

• Both teams have faults and both teams can help each other find actionable solutions.

Pragmatic solutions? We should SPLIT!:

No.

• ABC loses network effect, has to work 5x as hard to bring BCH ecosystem to where it is now while also somehow attracting talent, value and actual usage to the project (something that will be very difficult even with the added monetary incentive). Also becomes THE FACE of BCH, for better and for worse.

• BCHN remains a band of opposition leaders who will have to find a way of reliably paving the way for BCH, even though their rise to power came from asking questions and not providing answers. The road to efficient progress will be chaotic and turbulent, if even successful.

Majority hashrate and longest chain for either side is about as exciting as farting and finding out you shit your pants.

• The third option means that both sides have prepared for the initial standoff and reassess their options before finalizing a split. Taking advantage of the third option means envisioning what a no-split situation looks like and creating a list of demands to see it bear fruit. Even if their isn't a standoff and one side comes out a winner after only a few weeks, I still believe the smartest path forward would be to negotiate for a healthier, whole BCH. If the majority group does this, I promise to stroke their ego and glorify them for their impressive feat of victory and even more impressive humility of finding common ground with "the enemy." It's patently absurd it has come to this...

Conclusion

That's about it. I'd be happy if someone can lay out reasoning for why this doesn't seem like the best solution. I just warn you that your arguments should be well thought out- ad hominems, red herrings, and straw-man arguments will be properly eviscerated.

• "But BCHN aren't serious or competent enough"

Great, that should make your ability to thrive in a free market even easier. Splitting just means you're a kiddie in a sandbox. For all of the attacks of BCHN being "hobbyist", if a reference node implementation can't find better ways of monetizing and thriving other than using a clean slate for their work every time, who becomes the hobby project then?

• "Amaury is toxic and needs to go"

Ah yes, the guy who has trudged along despite all the attacks- financial, social, etc. And allowed BCH to be anything at all is the "only problem" of BCH. He's definitely the cause of some of the problems, but that doesn't come close to making him the villian in this story. You can't manage to work with him in BCH? How do you expect to solve future real world problems even if he's gone? His stubbornness is misplaced sometimes, but not malicious. You will quickly find that other people who provide less value than Amaury will creep into positions of power- people who can be just as stubborn as him, or worse, more malicious. If these people are more effective at masquerading their intentions you'll be in for a bad time. Better to convince him and his peers of the value you provide then fork your way to a better tomorrow. It won't come.

I can go on...

I just hope BitcoinABC and BCHN read this and take it to heart. Make a plan of demands and concessions and leave it in the drawer as a plan B. That's all i'm asking.

Cheers,

Mono