As Ethereum's highly anticipated Merge upgrade approaches its mid-September launch, discussions about a potential PoW/PoS chain split have gained momentum. dForce founder Mindao Yang revisits Ethereum's 2016 fork to analyze how today's ETHPoW debate differs—and what factors could determine its outcome.
- Author: Mindao Yang, Founder of dForce
Let's examine the possible ETH PoW fork. Compared to the 2016 ETC split, this situation feels markedly calmer based on my observations.
During the ETC fork's peak tension, miners massively migrated hashpower to ETH while ETC prices surged (nearing 0.3 ETH). Rumors swirled about core developers abandoning ETH for ETC, putting ETH holders through psychological turmoil.
Three Types of ETH Holders During the 2016 Fork:
- TheDAO investors: OG whales who faced total loss if ETC became dominant. Would they hedge by selling ETH for ETC? But misjudgment meant amplified losses.
- Non-DAO whales: Held equal coins on both chains, perfectly hedged. They championed "code is law" rhetoric while supporting ETC for reputational gains.
- TheDAO participants: Bought ETH specifically for TheDAO—they'd lose everything if ETC won, making them staunch ETH supporters.
TheDAO locked ~13% of ETH supply, with participation likely exceeding 60% among ICO OGs. When Vitalik and core developers publicly committed to ETH, social consensus solidified—ETH became the legitimate chain.
Key Philosophical Questions from ETC Fork:
- What does "code is law" truly mean?
- Does hashpower equal voting rights?
- Which holds more weight: social consensus or computational consensus?
- Is immutability bound by social agreement?
👉 Discover how modern forks handle these dilemmas
PoW/PoS Fork vs. ETC: Fundamental Differences
Unlike the ETC/ETH battle, today's potential split involves no hashpower competition. The PoS chain essentially reboots, where social consensus alone determines legitimacy—hashpower carries zero weight.
2016 Fork: Like China/Taiwan dynamics—both vying for the same "electorate" (miners).
2022 Fork: Resembles Singapore/Malaysia separation—divergent cultures cleanly splitting with separate voter bases.
Who Decides the Fork's Fate?
As with ETC, exchanges hold the cards (last time it was Poloniex). Miners claiming fork leadership exaggerate their role—price discovery happens on exchanges, not through hashpower. Secondary exchange listings create pricing pressure that forces tier-1 platforms to follow, eventually dragging protocols (like Lido) and infrastructure into supporting the fork.
Current market positioning suggests:
- ETC's ceiling: ~2.5% of ETH's market cap
- Potential PoW chain: 0.5-2% of ETH's value
Major players have already voted with their feet:
"Support of ETH2 will be seamless."
— Paolo Ardoino, CTO @ Bitfinex
Asset protocols (USDC, USDT, WBTC) will follow PoS, pulling DeFi/CeFi ecosystems along. A PoW chain would likely exist merely as an EVM-compatible alternative—but arbitrage opportunities may emerge (more on that later).
FAQ: Ethereum Fork Key Questions
Q: What triggered Ethereum's 2016 fork?
A: TheDAO hack forced a contentious chain split to reverse stolen funds—sparking debates about blockchain immutability.
Q: Why is the current PoW/PoS debate less heated?
A: No direct hashpower competition exists. PoS operates independently, reducing conflict between factions.
Q: Which chain will exchanges support post-Merge?
A: Most major platforms (like OKX 👉 track live updates) have signaled PoS alignment, but may list PoW tokens if demand emerges.
Q: Can PoW and PoS chains coexist long-term?
A: Yes, but with asymmetrical support—PoS will likely dominate DeFi/NFT ecosystems while PoW serves niche use cases.
Q: How does social consensus differ between forks?
A: 2016 required convincing miners/stakeholders; 2022 hinges on developer/community narratives and exchange policies.
Q: What's the biggest risk for ETH holders?
A: Short-term volatility during the transition, though chain splits historically create arbitrage windows (e.g., ETC/ETH trading pairs).
For deeper analysis of blockchain governance models: 👉 Explore comparative frameworks