I recently went into the Blurt Discord and told them they should nullify the stake of both sides. If you want to create a new community, you need a new distribution. Any Graphene (DPOS) fork that uses the same distribution is doomed to fail. No big players on either side of the voting war asked for these forks to happen. They already have their chain secured. Airdropping people huge sums when you know they don't want to be a part of the community is a foolish idea. These forks scream Ethereum Classic "code is law" all over them.
Something that you haven't mentioned in the original post: these forks hinge on a centralized account that controls every witness. Theoretically that account has diminishing returns over time. It's like a ticking clock for failure. If the big accounts that were airdropped coins dump, everyone loses; if they hold, everyone loses. If the centralized agent decides to increase their own power, everyone loses.
In my opinion the people in charge of the new distribution have no idea what they are doing. I guess they'll either prove me wrong or learn the hard way. Should be interesting either way.
On Blurt we are going to be researching improved consensus models for the next HF later in the year, features such as 1 Staked Token 1 Vote, uncapped votes for validators ie can vote more than 30 for better distribution and even encouraging vote participation by requiring stakeholders to vote at least X number of validators in order to receive the ~2.5% pa staking rewards.
nice. 1 to 1 voting is pretty important
Its a cash grab. If they make some money off the launch and it fails....well, as long as they get paid who cares?