The idea that the code maintainers get to decide which transactions are valid or not is insane. Almost as insane as saying an 'easy' fix is to arbitrarily fork the chain undermining it's whole purpose.
I'm not defending anything here but adding context. It wasn't JUST the "code maintainers." They made a proposal and all of the nodes "voted" by opting in or out. A lot of them opted out (Eth Classic) but majority usually wins in these situations. Did certain entities have more influence or power in this situation, yes 100%. Is that better or worse then how it would play out in standard US finance system? I'm not sure, you decide.
You can roll back Ethereum transactions without forking the blockchain if you build the rollback mechanism into your settlement contract.
There isn’t anything to “fork” in USD since it isn’t a blockchain, but different USD settlement layers get out of sync and have to be manually reconciled. If you instead tried to “fork”/replicate USD in that situation, you’d probably be thrown in jail for life. I personally prefer the blockchain way of expressing my option through code and seeing if anyone wants to follow me and not having to ask for permission.
The new kingmakers are the stablecoins. Whichever chain they decide to honor has a huge amount of economic weight behind it.
How much of this economic weight is real, at least in the case of Tether, is another story. I suspect we'll find out in the next few years as regulation ramps up.
