the more forks, the more fragmentation of the community. we need numerical concentration in the long run.
There a conflict here though. What we need is more numerical participants, not just numerical concentration of a relatively tiny number of participants. Bitcoin at its current scale of usage will just wither and die (or be leapfrogged) if it doesn't grow a lot, so concentration of the existing users is fairly pointless. I don't think anyone disagrees with this?
The context of forking was allowing more rapid technical innovation, with the economic assumption that most participants would relatively quickly concentrate on one fork anyway, making that the successor.
If that economic assumption turns out to be untrue, then it is obviously the case that the needs of some participants or potential participants are very poorly served by one of the forks, and overall growth will suffer by failing to address those underlying needs.
referring to numerical growth and concentration of participants worldwide into the exisitng Bitcoin mainchain to maximize tx fees as we transition away from block rewards. this is essential.
forking is a tricky term and the concepts depend on how you define it. hard forks incorporating new innovations are fine as long as they are truly needed and the only effort needed is to download new software. but if it also forces participants to dig out cold wallets and make financial transfers to new coins or new sidechains, that is a big problem. many ppl will get left behind and will lose money.