As a Miner

The contention between whether or not to accept or reject ABC's 8% Coinbase redirection only directly concerns the miners, this is their decision to make as to how they want to split or not split up their block rewards. The consequences of what these miners decide will affect the larger ecosystem if they are not united, potentially resulting in a value decreasing chain-split.

Historically, chain splits do not increase a miner's profitability in the short or longer term, being aware of this, the incentive for miners to band together is significant. The hypothesis of the IFP is that the mandatory funding will increase BCH's value, but what the result of that experiment will be is anything but certain. In an already uncertain market, miners increase their risk testing this hypothesis, the only thing they can be for certain taking this path is that they will make 8% less in block rewards.

Miners will weigh the risks of both accepting the incumbent's (ABC) plan or rejecting the incumbent's leadership to determine which option they believe will provide a better return on their investments. If they cannot decide, stepping aside to let other miners with more conviction determine this is also a viable option, especially considering BCH is not the only SHA-256 coin in town where they can utilize their hardware elsewhere. Regardless, BCH friendly miners who realize a split is not in their interest should attempt to come to a consensus on this matter before it's time to throw down with their hashrate.

As a Service Provider

For the most significant of these services, Bitcoin Cash is only a small part of their offering, some of these (ie: exchanges) may even have a short term incentive to embrace a BCH chain split, as this could be a high volume event netting them immediate extra profits. These services that deal with multiple cryptocurrencies also have a longer term incentive to help increase the value of the coins they deal in, a more adopted coin will increasingly bring along more users to their platform.

Some of these larger services may take the opportunity to make harmful political decisions as they are not ideologically aligned with peer-to-peer cash, on the flip side those that are supportive of BCH will try their best to offer a stance conducive of keeping a united chain. Unlike previous hard forks, this contention is a soft fork and a neutral stance can be taken by simply running a node like BCHN that follows the majority hashrate. The Catch 22 here is that not offering both options independently on the market prevents the market discovery determining which side of the coin the stakeholders prefer. A compromise here for BCH friendly exchanges may be to offer futures markets, similar to what Coinflex offers here. With futures structured in such a way, both assets will be offered in the event of two viable chains, while also retaining the possibility of offering only a single united chain in case of overwhelming majority.

For the BCH only services, taking a neutral stance by running BCHN will almost certainly be the preferred option of choice, allowing the miners and market forces to sort out which chain tip to follow. Any service wishing to make a political statement by running only ABC is free to do so, but taking this risk is completely unnecessary.

As a User or Investor

It's not realistic that 100% of users will agree on the best path forward, differing opinion and levels of understanding will always be present and result in at least some split of the community. Users have the option to express their convictions either way, to stand by and accept whatever the majority consensus becomes, or to exit their positions entirely. It should, however, be apparent to all users that a chain-split is not in their best interest.

The war will likely be won before the battle begins, depending on how the user's voices influence the major economic players (service providers) in the ecosystem. Generally these players will gauge what the their users request and make decisions accordingly. If you have strong convictions, your best use of energy is to petition these players to act in your interests, if there does happen to be a strong majority of users united, as it currently appears is the case, and the will of that majority is strongly but politely communicated to these major players, the chances of a substantial minority splintering Bitcoin Cash apart will be drastically reduced.

The power is in our hands, let's come together and continue the fight for peer-to-peer cash!