Wouldn't that mean the system is flawed.
What stops us from forking anytime we disagree on something?
Nothing stops anyone from forking. That's the entire point. The question becomes: who's going to support that version of the code? Who's going to put their value into that network?
There is a huge overhead cost when trying to create a new network. It's a lot of work and they need a lot of support. The disagreement has to be valid or no one will come into consensus with the new network. Anyone can fork Bitcoin at any time and give themselves all the coins. No one cares; no one will follow that fork.
So then it means of is all gobbled up in the most stable and accepted iteration we basically screw or network by selling our tokens. But if we don't sell them we basically don't benefit from them either. In the case of Bitcoin.
As for hive since it's proof of stake we would lose our say in the current stable iteration. And forking would mean we just sore at losing.
This is doing my head in. Too much what ifs. Great Scott's!?
You're still thinking of these networks as investments.
These are economies and communities.
Eventually we'll be able to work here full time and earn all our income in crypto.
We see projects like LEO and CUB pop up that are fully connected to Hive and just building massive value.
Some of that value gets captured by Hive itself: all these networks are connected.