According to @AveryChing, if a catastrophic exploit let attackers mint 1000x supply on BTC or ETH and attempt withdrawals, the communities would push a rapid fix and fork as a social-contract backstop. Source: X post by @AveryChing on Nov 14, 2025 https://x.com/AveryChing/status/1989097442248388717 Ching adds that making the remedy easier reduces network downtime during such incidents. Source: X post by @AveryChing on Nov 14, 2025 https://x.com/AveryChing/status/1989097442248388717 This aligns with documented precedents: Ethereum executed a hard fork following The DAO exploit in 2016. Source: Ethereum Foundation blog Hard Fork Completed, July 20, 2016 https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed Bitcoin similarly fixed the 2010 Value Overflow Incident by invalidating the inflated supply via a chain fork. Source: Bitcoin Wiki Value overflow incident https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident For traders, Ching’s stance and these precedents indicate that catastrophic dilution risks are typically addressed via coordinated forks, refocusing risk management on fork execution timelines and operational continuity during incidents. Sources: X post by @AveryChing on Nov 14, 2025 https://x.com/AveryChing/status/1989097442248388717; Ethereum Foundation blog Hard Fork Completed https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed; Bitcoin Wiki Value overflow incident https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident