it could be seen as serving the interests of such a hypothetical uncle gov to fork:

- confuse the information space e.g. "yeah i heard bitcoin is forking a bunch, USDC is probably easier for me to use for now"
- fork fail scenario == pump & dump, worst case

what does uncle lose for attempting at a fork?

maybe i'm completely dumb... my point in the parent is that:
a) it's easier to get the exchange to engage w a forced covenant by the thumbscrews of access to banking services
b) imagine the covenant which is written in such a way that only another covenant enforced wallet can be the receiver, receive.

a boa constrictor type situation. it's not hard to imagine this idea coming out of a scenario planning exercise, so it's reasonable to ask, at least. 


@delete after 2 weeks


itsrealfake

Nothing prevents Uncle Gov from demanding you use their KYC fork of bitcoin either.