No I don't have a paragraph in mind maybe some BU members could get that ball rolling.It comes down to, how is Bitcoin Cash defined? More over without replay protection which fork is Bitcoin Cash in the event of a contentious chain split . How should an exchange or ETF deal with the situation?Before deploying the ticker it would be good to have everyone who uses it understand how it is intended to be assigned in the case of a chain split. i.e. Which fork gets the ticker, what requirements should be met to continue using the ticker as the official Bitcoin Cash ticker. I'm only thinking primitively given I suspect S2X failed because exchanges and ETF's weren't sure which fork was going to be called BTC and everyone wanted to avoid a catastrophe.Exchanges and ETF's carry a lot of weight here and as we saw with S2X they can abuse that influence effectively blocking the upgrade by refusing to follow the most PoW chain, or by following some other definition of Bitcoin Cash.If I recall @Zangelbert Bingledack @Roger_Murdock and @awemany had some very refined ideas regarding which fork would be the BTC fork at the time of the S2X fork. Obviously a replay protection hard fork is a non issue. It's forks without replay protection that are to be considered along with the newI don't think voting on this BUIP should be delayed. If BUIP087 goes through as is I'll propose a separate BUIP after some consultation with the community