In the wake of a split an original coin owner is faced with the choice of retaining or selling units of the original and split chains.

As discussed in Dumping Fallacy there is no way to discourage the existence of one chain or the other by exchanging or hoarding units of either. Therefore we consider this choice to be strictly a question of how to maximize the value of existing holdings following a split.

Given a position before the split, an owner is impacted by the increased cost of unit conversion, and replay protection as applicable. These are unavoidable future trading costs that reduce the net present value of the units. Therefore these factors are not relevant to the question.

The remaining considerations assume that the combined coins will increase in price over the contemplated period of time.

Under the assumptions of the Consolidation Principle two similar coins will eventually consolidate, reducing to zero the value of one of them over time. If one happens to know which this will be, it is rational to sell it and buy the other. However, given that one may not know which coin will survive, there is a chance that the trade would sell the coin that succeeds for the one that fails, sacrificing all value in the original units. With no knowledge of the future, selling all or part of one for the other increases the potential reward in proportion to the increased risk. With no knowledge of the future, selling all or part of one for the other increases the potential reward in proportion to the increased risk. As such it is equally rational to hoard both, which preserves the assumptions that existed prior to the split.

Finally it should be emphasized that both chains could fail, with value consolidating to an independent chain, commodity or state money. This topic intends only to provide a rational decision framework based on assumptions that may not come to pass.