Creating an alt-coin fork for every situation that arises on the Ethereum network is not the point of blockchain.

There is a lie that the traditional crypto community around bitcoin has spread, and that lie is "blockchain consensus is governance".

Yet BTC has proven that this is not true... leaving governance up to the blockchain essentially reduces governance down to a few parties, not a wide swath of what decentralized networks promised us.

Blockchain Consensus Governance in practical outcomes puts these people in charge:

• Exchanges (They define what units carry the name which holds the economic value of a currency, they define the link between market capitalization and which blockchain has that market capitalization.)
• Node operators (They define what transactions are considered valid.)
• Developers who hold the keys to the main github referenced by all Google searches, and other media organizations which cite "where does the code of the coin reside?"
• Miners (Almost useless practically speaking, but legacy coins use them. Bitcoin's failure to implement Segwit2X is indicative that the mining community ultimately holds the least amount of power.)

All blockchains, including EOS, are ultimately governed by the above system. Yet this type of governance is unclear on who is in charge, it is opaque and non-transparent. It works off an oligarchy of insider deals, politics of varied individuals who hold different levels of influence and power over the system. The list goes on with the flaws.

In other words, these governance entities aught to agree upon a constitution of how a blockchain should be governed. This is what EOS does in terms of node operators.

Governance is not about who can fork a network. The old lie is that the "masses at large" determine which fork wins. Rather, it is a small group of decision makers that decide which fork wins since they hold the influence to which the masses at large follow.

Imagine trying to get a US President elected outside our standard voting process? You could do it. We could have two thirds of the states ratify a constitutional amendment and force it over on the government. Accomplishing this successfully is unlikely. Rather, it's the regular government power holders which are going to influence who can compete in an election. Trying to govern with a blockchain and not a governance system, is basically like trying to re-ratify a new constitution every time a simple change needs to occur.

Blockchain is not a successful governance model. One of the main reasons it is unsuccessful is that it resists change a great deal. It's designed to resist change, rather than being designed to be adaptable according to transparent rules. Those blockchains that do change regularly and update, are being governed centrally and this is what permits the updates to be forced on the network.