This turned out to be pretty accurate, and I had no special insight, anyone can invent conspiracy theories.
Exactly... I was writing something similar too, around the same time:
When Bitcoin is going so good, with valuation of near 4.5k USD, and people want to attack the main chain in a contentious way (=shitstorm), I can't really see them as having good intentions. Perhaps they stand to profit more from the destruction of value by positioning their "options" accordingly. After all if you can control the "good news" and "bad news" of a market, then you can benefit financially. And this is what they've been doing with all the forking scenarios, fud, or real since the price was at 200$. They create the news and the sentiment. They have become a market force that indirectly dictates prices. "Oh they are forking it, sell"... "Oh they cancelled the fork, onwards to 10k!!!", etc etc. This is bullshit on so many levels it's not even funny. No wonder Segwit2x was decided in a closed-meeting with financial companies.
No insider info, just common logic: BCH is not a coin that is sustainable in the long run. It's created for short-term speculation or upsetting the hashrate of BTC, or for market manipulation. Why is it non-sustainable? Because there are no fees paid to sustain the network, as mining reward goes down over the long run. The promise of large blocks and near free txs is unsustainable for the security model (=there is no incentive to mine). Abundance of block space = no reason to pay fees. BCH blocks right now have like 1-2-5$ in fees. The entire block
The short-term focus on BCH is also proven by the way that this thing is mined in order to issue blocks faster - which brings reward halving even closer, which in turn compounds the fee-incentive problem due to blockspace abundance (which in itself is compounded by lack of actual use), which all screams "non-viability".... These are pretty clear, from a technical / economical standpoint... but whales gonna whale anyway
