Blockchain networks can rewrite and modify their existing protocols through a process known as a “fork,” a mechanism which serves as a key driver behind the digital asset landscape’s constant evolution. Whether “hard” or “soft,” forks represent a change that can have significant implications for an asset’s long-term viability, risk, and return potential.

For institutional investors, understanding the differences between hard and soft forks and their potential impact on asset performance and portfolio construction is essential to strategic planning.

What Is a Fork?

At its most basic, a fork refers to a divergence in a blockchain’s protocol or rule set. It can be thought of as a split in the underlying code that defines how transactions are validated, and consensus is maintained. Forks can occur as a scheduled upgrade or as a response to diverging views among network participants regarding its technical direction, security model, or economic incentives.

There are two primary types of forks:

Hard forks are non-backward-compatible changes to the protocol. Nodes that do not upgrade to the new version cannot validate new blocks created under the new rules. This can lead to a chain split in which the old and new chain operate independently. In this scenario, both chains continue to exist in their own respective paths with new transactions.

Soft forks are backward-compatible changes that modify existing rules—without breaking consensus. For example, a soft fork might introduce a new transaction type that older nodes can still recognize as valid. Over time, most network participants will typically upgrade to support the new rules.

A helpful way to visualize the differences between the two fork types is to imagine a child playing with blocks in a shape sorter. If the block gets bigger and no longer fits in the original hole, that would be a hard fork. But if the block gets smaller, it still fits, and the original blocks do too, it would be a soft fork.

For investors, forks represent more than just technical modifications. They can serve as indicators of how resilient—or fragmented—a network’s governance and wider community may be. A hard fork specifically can create unanticipated exposures, changes in liquidity, or even impact the underlying economics of a protocol in ways that affect long-term value and risk models.

With this in mind, forks should be understood not just as isolated events, but as structural changes with implications for an asset’s long-term integrity.

Forks’ Strategic Implications for Institutional Investors

Although forks may not always affect short-term pricing, their long-term impact on an asset’s utility, consensus mechanism, and market structure can often be more significant. 

Hard forks can lead to unexpected outcomes such as asset duplication, liquidity fragmentation, or protocol divergence. These events can shift an asset’s underlying event thesis, especially if developers, miners, or users migrate unevenly between chains. Even when successful, forks can create ambiguity around governance and an asset’s technical roadmap.

For instance, the 2017 hard fork that created Bitcoin Cash (BCH) from Bitcoin (BTC) was driven by a disagreement over block size limits and transaction throughput.1 Although BCH’s goal at launch was to offer faster payments, a majority of developers, users, and institutional liquidity remained with BTC.

Soft forks are typically less disruptive. However, they still carry strategic relevance. They may signal a maturing protocol’s ability to evolve without fracturing—an important consideration for investors focused on long-term durability and scalability. The degree of coordination required to implement a soft fork can also offer insight into how effective a project’s governance system truly is.

A notable soft fork includes Bitcoin’s 2017 Segregated Witness (SegWit) upgrade, which restricted how transaction data was stored to improve scalability and enable Layer 2 solutions like the Lightning Network.2

Although technically sound and widely endorsed, the conversation surrounding SegWit’s implementation highlighted philosophical divides within the community, and eventually contributed to the BCH hard fork. However, despite initial delays, SegWit’s long-term success demonstrated Bitcoin’s resilience and capacity to implement critical changes.

Regardless of whether a protocol change is a hard or soft fork, investors should be mindful of what underlying dynamics these updates can signal as a key consideration for an asset’s long-term resilience. 

Conclusion

Both hard and soft forks are fundamental mechanisms through which blockchain protocols evolve. However, they also carry distinct implications for institutional investors. 

Beyond technical upgrades, forks can reflect a network’s overall health and can have far-reaching consequences for an asset long term. Understanding both the drivers behind a fork and how a community navigates the change is essential to assessing an asset’s strategic positioning and making informed decisions.