I am not sure if you were trying to but you make my point all 3 of the tokens/projects you mention are children of Bitcoin and are by far less valuable.
Here the current route may very likely help reach that tipping point a lot faster.
But to be clear I want SNT as fast as everyone else, just maybe this curve ball is going to help win the game.
Instead of talking forkes, why not give Maidsafe a year to work on the native token, letās all come together and make the Autonomi network the best thing on the planet.
For someone to fork the network then they will face the same problem that Autonomi will face, people need to trust that the token works, FIAT on/off ramps, development, testing. Autonomi should have a good head start the first year, they have developed it this far, knows the code and challenges, they have high degree of trust. If they just can start testing the native token in a not so distant future then that would be great.
Or am I missing something and not seeing things clearly?
Does that mean you are for it? 
What do you think about running a parallel native network without market tokenomics?
No Safe, no wave.
My post was written with a wink, I hope you have a sense of humour
Nowhere is it written that the two networks are to be continually separate, it is an idea of how to continue working on the native network without compromise, while launching a commercial network that can grow towards reaching critical mass and allow the network to be tested under market conditions, the two networks would pursue different objectives. This is an idea of how have oneās cake and eat it.
I think launching a comnet with a native token to play with before the official native test network would be unwarranted.
No Safe, no wave.
From reading through all this material it seems like the ERC20 network token could be a slick way to not step into a regulatory mess. It becomes the bridge to fiat. I find it interesting that the # coins is half. Perhaps the play is to create the other half in the form of native network tokens when that feature goes live. Then there would only need to be an internal way to swap 1:1 between the native and ERC20 network token. At some point if there is a way to bridge between the native token and fiat the ERC20 may have less utility and could perhaps fade away.
Thatās all good, and Iām all for sharing ideas with the goal of pushing the Native token forward asap
I thought I had confused you with my ramblings 
Just to clarify this point, itās been stated by the team that the max supply is being actually halved to around 2.15bn, and thereās no play to create the āother halfā in any form
Iām not gonna lie, I think the fork ideas are a bit wishful thinking. Sure, it could be viable for a select few, although one might argue it will never be decentralized enough. If this network wants to succeed youāre going to need partnerships, brands building on top of it, have actual usecases. From what Iāve heard, Maidsafe has been working on their network and partnership for many years already. Even though weāve not seen any real partnership announcements yet, Iām confident that the team has several big (bigger than some might be able to guess) partnerships waiting. Once that ball starts rolling it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to overtake the autonomi network in terms of succes, even if its fundamentally better.
Just look at Bitcoin, one might argue there are several coins out there with far superior chains when it comes to TPS, confirmation speed, energy consumption. But people value the status quo and decentralization to much to ever let a other coin overtake Bitcoin. Itās just the way people work.
The response I got when mentioned this idea was nope its 50% full stop
The biggest issue with forks will be the data, often people look at the network from the perspective of the token and end up losing sight of the true importance of the data. The network is primarily about the data, and its the data giving value to the network. I would think if the token was the major part then we could ignore the data, but then you quickly realise that the data is so much more than a way to secure the token. Its more the token supporting the data.
I agree with this, and the threat I see is that amount of data / apps etc a community like the Ethereum community could gather in the early days if they jumped onboard a fork, might rapidly outpace the volume and quality of data / apps that the Autonomi community could produce.
If this happened, a competing network could get the network effect that makes it pretty much insurmountable for other communities (including Autonomiās) to be the most valuable Autonomi Network.
Not saying itās likely, but it seems far more probable now with ERC20 integration, given how easy itāll be to fork in the very early days and allow people to start, e.g. an ETH data network where people could earn ETH for running nodes, which would be appealing to many.
I think what makes it fairly unlikely (I hope!) is that the ETH community wonāt be thinking about it, or thinking about developing apps for it, or running nodes for it.
Hopefully Autonomiās network will get such a headstart in building the ecosystem that it has momentum thatās insurmountable before any forks can gain significant traction.
Having a bunch of niche forks for certain communities could be very healthy though, as they can serve as tests for innovation that can benefit Autonomiās development over time.
I would think also that itāll depend on the usefulness of the data. If its just memes and random images/data then they may have the volume but not the worth. As @Mightyfool says having the partners lined up before launch to upload valuable data at launch will be a key to getting around the fork issues you mentioned. Internet archive would be for instance be a great volume of data to be uploading.
I hope as you hope that those with the ability will not be thinking of doing so early enough.
If a team/community decides, that all team devs are needed for already scheduled development, I humbly propose myself for the task of working on Native network. I wanted to say this in public, because Iām in favor of transparency.
From what @dirvine wrote, that the technology is already there, I deduce the token we have now in Beta is roughly the target Native Token or not far from it. My theory is, that the most work of NT launch is meant to go to a tooling ā wallet, exchanges (ERC20 ā Native) etc. And if we are speaking about parallel/test/community network, keeping a separate version of a codebase with Native Token is necessary. I have no great experience in developing large projects in Rust, but in other langs I do, and I already have a record of working for Autonomi community (JAMS), and am somehow familiar with core codebase, not to mention a deep connection with the project and forum presence.
I think I could at least keep the Native Token version alive in the current form (integrating non-token development from main branch). Itās the least whatās needed for testing the token, the economy dynamics, and allow developers of apps, that relay on NT features (micropayments, zero fees), to continue their work without waiting 1-2 years for official NT launch.
The ERC20 branch is meant to become the leading one soon. And from that moment the more it gets developed, the harder it will be to keep up with incorporating non-token changes into the hypothetical NT branch.
As this does not seem to be a full-time task, I think Iām capable of that. And, if there are more resources, probably help with whatās needed above that, with a guidance from the team. Iād be more than happy to be accountable to the community in any form that is decided, public reports etc.
Check out the Dev Forum
Interest thoughts. Iām all for having two networks right now as long as the second network does not distract the general public from the real network. Running the second network as a unofficial testnet, (that could actually turn out to be a main net if all goes well,) would be sufficient.
The real, ERC safe network called Autonomi, could be the upstream development and the investor cash-out route and new investor onboarding route thanks to cash on/off ramp.
Then there would be a community network, ANT safe network, which in the shadows in the background would be tracking and learning, even restarting if needed, without any cash on/off-ramp and without any investor pressure. It would be growing more slowly perhaps, but possibly enjoy zero cost of community support in terms of running nodes.
Someone would need to figure out and decide how to distribute tokens to get uploads started. (I would really love to have the ability to provide say 1TB of space to the network and to get 200MB storage space in return, without ever having to buy any tokens at all.) IF a few developers would be willing and could manage to get things started and keep things afloat, it could be a great experiment.
The question is, how far people can get, purely based on donations and without a clear road to getting rich, but there is certainly a precedent of excellent software out there based on exactly this approach so I would give it good chances.
I would be happy to run nodes to support both networks.
It seems itās already working like thatā¦
I think we have misunderstood a bit here, there is no reason to discuss forking the network at the moment, what I have proposed are two parallel networks that will serve different purposes. And itās not about sharing or duplicating data, itās important to remember that weāre still at a very early stage where weāre still testing, and it will probably take a long time to āformā the network.
I think the data that will be posted on the network(s) probably wonāt be critical data with a view to storing āforeverā, at this stage anyone will be able to post data on both networks and see how the networks work, how much resources they require, what the cost of storage will be etc. We are also not talking about any competition between the networks, as the Native Token network is not yet complete, and it should be assumed that ultimately there will only be one autonomous network, as one day it will probably become the new network protocol of the Internet, although something like a sub-network e.g. IoT, IIoT etc. cannot be ruled out.
Splitting the data that exists isnāt all that possible. Youād require every node runner to copy their nodes for it to work. But then they are running half the nodes on each nertwork, so what happens to the other half they couldnāt copy.
Each network from a fork has its own keys, so new data has to be paid for twice. Cannot expect node operators to not get paid for half the data being uploaded.
Once they split they are independent networks and one will end up being favoured because it has most of the data, most of the most wanted data
We still donāt understand each other 
We are not talking about a fork but the creation of a new parallel network
The current network with all data, with procedures in place, meeting regulations, supporting the ERC20 L2 Token is launched according to the approved plan,
A second, parallel network, which is a copy of the code base of the current network (may have no data or have some data e.g. test data posted by the team and the community), is designed to operate as originally intended based on the Native Token, is not available on the exchanges, and the exact status of this network can be determined, including constraints that will allow MaidSafe to maintain control over software development.
The two networks will serve different purposes, and everyone will be able to upload data to both networks, test, create applications, etc.
This is exactly describing a fork of the code.
And this is exactly what will be done with either internal testnets or open to those wishing to help. But these testnets will not be long lived since the code is being iterated.
That is why I thought you must be talking of something different to what weāve been told will happen.
Perhaps I did not express myself very well and should have used the terms hard fork, which, as I understand it, is a network forking in an economic sense, i.e. when someone tries to copy the code and create competition for the existing network, or plans a āhostile takeoverā of the market, users, resources, and so on, or in the technical sense when someone modifies the code to suit their own needs in order to differentiate themselves in one way or another from the original.
On the other hand, copying the codebase and doing parallel work on the same project, but in two different legal environments, is to me a parallel network, not a fork - because as I suggested, perhaps once the Native Token network has reached technological maturity, it would be possible to merge the two networks - it is a separation in an organizational sense.
Such parallel networks are still under the control of the code developer but separating the work on achieving scale with tokenomics from the work on the native token and optimising the network to achieve the original assumptions, (imho) would allow for more freedom, comfort and transparency in the work, but most importantly the fact that one network meets the legal and regulator conditions and the other does not have to meet them and can test uncompromised solutions.
I asked @dirvine about how the work on the Native Token would be carried out but he replied that he had written about it n times, I however could not find this information anywhere, whereas now it has been clearly written by you for the first time. Would not carrying out the work as proposed be better than continuous iterations of the network with the Native Token?
Who you callinā Big Bux ā¦ ?
See my post I covered that. The network in January will be the ERC20 network. Then development will be happening on the ERC20 code and the Native token code. For the native token code work there will testnets. (ie parallel networks with one only running as test nets since the native token code is not ready for continuous running) I would expect the native token code will be using the ERC20 code base with modifications being done to parts of the code that can be reincorporated in a automated manner (ie conditional compile time code etc)
To have a parallel network means by definition two separate networks and by your words running code that has some differences (ie a forked codebase) One ERC20 and one unfinished native codebase.
tl;dr
Since the 2 networks are running different tokens they have to have some different code and that is the definition of a fork.
But since the native token doesnāt actually exist yet since it is going to be different code & data type. That means its impossible to be running a parallel network continuously. The native token will only be test nets till its ready and then by the sounds of it the native token will include the ERC20
As to merging, since there is no native token network with user generated data there is no merging to happen. If there was two networks then maybe after a lot of testing of the merge code it might be possible. As to the moral/legal objections to who pays/paid what, well thats another can of worms to be argued about. But luckly that cannot happen since there cannot be a parallel network until the native token code is completed and then its just an upgrade to the network s/w at that time
Its simple and I will tell you, he prob isnāt repeating it since every time it creates a ton of questions probing for more info he doesnāt have
The basics is that there is a new data type called a transaction data type and it will be the basis for not only the native token but other digital tokens (which could be used for digital or crypto tokens/coins). Also David has started work on that transaction type so no timeframe till native token has been suggested or mentioned.