The good ol' "nuclear option" again ...

I have nothing against a PoW change, but unfortunately, such a kind of hard fork would convert the "New PoW Bitcoin" itself into an altcoin. It would be pretty hard to convince most users to change to the new chain if Segwit2x really gains traction.

That Bitcoin.org is owned by a possible supporter of a chain with a changed algorithm a "heavy" asset, but that would be mostly relevant in the first phase after the fork. But if Segwit2x "wins" (it can only win if it conserves the hashrate leadership and industry support for some time, e.g. one month) then it will have already "pulled" most users to its chain and its ecosystem, and it may be too late for the "New PoW Bitcoin" to conserve leadership.

And I think Cobra is greatly exaggerating if he says that Bitcoin would be "destroyed" if the 2x chain wins. It's only one variable that is changed. If I was a Core developer, if the 2x chain really wins, I would try to conserve the position as the leading development team publishing a 2x-compatible client - and BTC1 never would win enough traction to "overtake" Core.

Anyway, I don't think Segwit2x will win - and that's much better for BTC's health (above all for the "health" of the development team). Cobra's statement, however, is to be read in this context: it is most likely an intent to incentive businesses to stay with the 1MB chain, outlining (or better: repeating, as the "nuclear option" scenario is not new at all) a "roadmap to survival" for the 1MB chain in the case it becomes unusable because of low hashpower after the fork.