This split is a bad idea.

I can't believe it.

I'm surprised that such smart people have become so infatuated with the idea of applying game theory to what's been going on. Not because game theory is "wrong", but because thinking you can implement game theory so effectively, especially given the nuanced standing of a project as ambitious as BCH, is a recipe for disaster. The "theory" part is kind of a big deal. It may seem to raise chances for a better outcome, but it also elevates the effects of something else with theory in its title- chaos. The more you fine tune your tactics and "bet on it", the greater likelihood that smaller, black swan type people or incidents will cause wildly different outcomes then what's been accounted for.

You expect that people play to win. That seems so obvious but...
That's not always true.

Sometimes people start playing in order to win, but realize their chances get worse, or don't like the rules, and decide to go rogue. They mess things up simply to throw people off from "everything going according to plan."

Sometimes people just don't even have the same game in mind when playing.

It's sad, but I think people are really forgetting the point. They'll cloak their ego in quasi-philosophical tangents, in gotcha type tweets or memes, in rallies around a "cause" they don't fully understand and more. I've seen it from both sides, in spades.

Some are doing it on purpose, some out of ignorance or naivety. At this point I can't tell you which is worse.

But the point is that both sides believe they are fighting to keep BCH in tact for "what it should be", when in fact neither are doing it.

What good is a technically superior product if it's been split off so many times that people don't want to touch it with a barge pole? "Oh but the markets always decide and value mean reverts." Don't give me this crap. The markets may also decide they've had enough with this instability and that they'll settle for a smart contract with slightly higher fees that's reliable over a super-duper-chad contract with slightly lower fees that is built on a project that changes names, tickers, people, etc. every couple of years.

BCH is in an amazing position. The technology is moving forward intelligently. Really good ideas are getting discussed and (eventually) implemented. Good minds and good people are trying to spread the adoption and allow BCH to achieve its utility.

Splitting is just signaling that the project isn't sure it "knows what it is or what it wants". If you think i'm wrong, I challenge anyone to explain to me what so all-important factor is causing BCH to split and divide people, energy, money, infrustructure, and stability. I'll wait...

Note: Oh you want to bring up governance? Things have been swimming along fairly well for a while now. There have been hiccups and annoyances, but for the most part things have been solid. In fact, I can some it up in a few sentences:

Amaury, stop thinking you always know the best decision to make and start listening and applying feedback from others. Certain other devs/people, put your frustrations with the french man aside and work with him instead of against him. Everyone else, keep building and spreading adoption.

-

Note 2: You want to talk about financing? Both sides have flipped flopped so much while ironically claiming that the other side is guilty of not being firm on their position that it's comical.

ABC gang: didn't have IFP, then wanted it in different revisions, then hard coded IFP, is now creating keys to allow a different type of financial governance. Just not BMP though.

BCHN&Friends: Against IFP in all its forms, but wait money IS important but we'll figure it out later, okay maybe some type of IFP could potentially work but probably not. Just not BMP though.

Javier: Why don't people just listen to me?!
(you're a great guy, don't take this personally)

And this is the reality: with the macro environment we are in and the ever increasing integration of tech into our daily lives, BCH is poised to make its big break. These next three years will be critical.

We may miss our chance with this split.
We also may not, but considering where things stand I see no reason to take the risk.

Is there anyone out there who's still willing to find a solution to bridge the gap? I'm looking for pragmatic solutions.

Maybe we can do a "future coin gains lock-up fund" (effective for only a finite salary) that gives ABC the needed incentive to hire and continue doing what they do short term. This will give the different sides more time to come together and find a more appropriate governance/funding solution that serves their own needs in a cooperative way.

It will also be a good time to work on interpersonal relationships. You don't have to work with these people directly. You don't even have to like them. You just need to tolerate and respect them long enough to allow each person to pursue their interests freely while allowing BCH to flourish. Besides, if things go as planned, in 3-5 years the network effect and adoption of BCH will be far reaching enough that you won't even have to associate with them. Everyone wins.

_________________________________________________

If you've made it this far...congratulations! You know how to read.
Feast on the knowledge and insight you've been given and if this article wasn't enough for you... (BCHN people, read option 1. ABC people, read option 2.)

Option 1: Too bad. If you expected to get something of value out of a free article, that's what makes you a stupid #Bitshevik! You'll never understand incentives, the markets, economics, or the real world...

Option 2: You're clearly an immoral thief. Maybe you'd have been able to usurp BCH if you weren't too busy kissing Amaury's feet! Take your shitty memes and misguided vision for BCH somewhere else.

Anti-fragility is key. Constant splitting is not a progression of BCH's evolution if so much energy and resources are carved from it with every new iteration. It will not compete. It still has a chance and we can do better.

Hopefully we'll be able to find an honest (wo)man...

Cheers,
Mono