Introduction
In early 2024, a pivotal moment in cryptocurrency history unfolded: the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the first spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). This landmark decision triggered massive institutional inflows, propelling Bitcoin’s price past its previous all-time high and, by December 2025, shattering the $100,000 barrier—an unprecedented milestone.
Yet, despite this bullish momentum, many assets historically correlated with Bitcoin have failed to keep pace. Notably, Bitcoin forks and native scaling solutions such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Fractal Bitcoin (FB) have underperformed significantly. While Bitcoin surged into mainstream financial recognition, these projects either stagnated or declined, even amid favorable market conditions.
Why has this divergence occurred? This article explores the evolving dynamics within the broader Bitcoin ecosystem, analyzing two prominent but struggling projects—BCH and FB—through the lenses of technology, market adoption, ecosystem development, and tokenomics.
👉 Discover how Bitcoin’s growth is reshaping its entire ecosystem—don’t miss the key insights.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH): A Fork Facing Diminished Relevance
Project Overview
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) emerged on August 1, 2017, as a hard fork of the original Bitcoin blockchain. Driven by a faction led by Bitcoin ABC, BCH aimed to address Bitcoin’s scalability issues by increasing the block size limit from 1MB to 8MB (later expanded further), enabling faster and cheaper transactions.
The core philosophy behind BCH was to position Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system—emphasizing on-chain scalability over layered solutions. It also introduced minor script improvements to support additional functionalities beyond simple payments.
Despite its promising start, BCH has struggled to maintain relevance in an increasingly competitive and innovation-driven crypto landscape.
Price Performance and Market Trends
BCH closely followed Bitcoin’s price trajectory during the early stages of the 2024 bull run. In January, as BTC rallied, BCH climbed from around $300 to a peak of nearly $700 by April—its highest level since 2021. However, this remains well below its all-time high of $3,785 reached in December 2017.
Since then, BCH has entered a prolonged consolidation phase. Even as Bitcoin rebounded above $90,000 in late 2025, BCH failed to sustain momentum, dropping back into the $400–$450 range. This underperformance highlights a weakening correlation between BTC and its early forks.
Key Challenges Facing BCH
1. Limited Ecosystem Development
Unlike Ethereum or even newer Layer 1 blockchains, BCH lacks a robust smart contract environment. Its scripting language is not Turing-complete, severely restricting the types of decentralized applications (dApps) that can be built.
While there are niche protocols like CashTokens for NFTs and Memo Cash for social media, the ecosystem remains sparse. The once-promising Simple Ledger Protocol (SLP) failed to gain traction compared to Bitcoin’s own Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens, which captured far more developer and user interest.
This lack of compelling use cases translates directly into lower demand for BCH as both a utility and speculative asset.
2. Regulatory Neutrality Without Adoption Gains
BCH’s classification as a non-security has shielded it from regulatory scrutiny—a contrast to assets like XRP or SOL, which faced legal challenges. However, this neutrality hasn’t translated into institutional adoption.
No major financial firms or ETF providers have shown interest in BCH. Grayscale’s product suite includes a BCH trust, but it remains small and illiquid compared to its Bitcoin or Ethereum offerings. Without yield-generating mechanisms like staking or DeFi integrations, traditional investors see little incentive to allocate capital.
3. Loss of Key Advocates
Leadership matters in crypto. BCH was once championed by influential figures like Roger Ver ("Bitcoin Jesus") and Jihan Wu, co-founder of Bitmain. But both have faded from active advocacy.
Ver faces ongoing legal issues related to tax evasion and has distanced himself from the project. Wu, after internal conflicts at Bitmain and within the BCH community, has largely withdrawn from public discourse. Their absence has weakened community cohesion and eroded long-term vision.
Fractal Bitcoin (FB): A Native Scaling Solution Struggling to Gain Traction
Project Overview
Fractal Bitcoin (FB), launched on September 10, 2024, is a Bitcoin-native Layer 2 solution developed by the team behind Unisat, one of the most popular wallet interfaces for Bitcoin inscriptions like BRC-20 tokens.
Rather than building a separate sidechain with different consensus rules, FB uses a modified version of Bitcoin Core’s codebase, implementing a "fractal" approach to scalability—allowing parallel processing while maintaining alignment with Bitcoin’s security model.
The goal? To scale Bitcoin’s throughput without compromising decentralization or security—making it an attractive proposition for developers seeking true Bitcoin-aligned scalability.
Price Performance Post-Launch
Initial market sentiment was overwhelmingly positive. Upon listing, FB opened trading around $30 and briefly spiked to $40—reflecting strong speculative interest. However, enthusiasm was short-lived.
Within weeks, prices began a steady decline. As of late 2025, FB trades around $2, representing a staggering drop of over 90%. This collapse raises serious questions about sustainability and long-term viability.
Why FB Has Underperformed
1. Poor Timing and Fading Hype Cycle
FB was conceived during the height of the Bitcoin inscription boom in 2023, when BRC-20 tokens like ORDI and SRC-20 drove massive transaction volume on-chain. Unisat, being central to that ecosystem, aimed to solve congestion through FB.
But by the time FB launched, the hype had cooled. The successor protocol to BRC-20—Runes—failed to reignite sustained interest. With fewer users minting or trading inscriptions, demand for scalable infrastructure diminished just as FB went live.
2. Underdeveloped Ecosystem
Since mainnet launch, only a handful of dApps have been deployed on FB—most are simple token explorers or bridges tied directly to BRC-20 activity.
Crucially missing are foundational components like:
- Decentralized exchanges (DEXs)
- Stablecoins
- Lending protocols
- Identity layers
Without these building blocks, FB cannot attract developers or real-world users. Speculative capital may enter quickly—but it exits faster when utility is absent.
3. Unfavorable Tokenomics and Selling Pressure
FB employs a 50% Proof-of-Work (PoW) mining model, allowing miners to merge-mine FB alongside Bitcoin. This led major mining pools to redirect hash power toward FB immediately after launch.
However, because early rewards were distributed via mining and a bootstrap airdrop—and because team allocations were locked—the entire initial supply came from miners and early claimers eager to cash out.
This created intense sell pressure:
- Miners needed liquidity to cover operational costs
- Airdrop hunters sold immediately for profit
- No vesting or lock-up mechanisms slowed distribution
As a result, price discovery was dominated by selling—not holding—undermining any chance of sustainable growth.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Is Bitcoin Cash still relevant in 2025?
A: While BCH maintains a presence in wallets and exchanges, its relevance has diminished due to limited innovation, weak ecosystem growth, and declining influence from former leaders. It remains a functional payment chain but lacks the momentum needed for broader adoption.
Q: What is Fractal Bitcoin trying to solve?
A: FB aims to scale Bitcoin natively by using a fractal architecture based on Bitcoin Core. It seeks to increase transaction throughput while preserving Bitcoin’s security and decentralization—offering an alternative to external Layer 2s like Lightning or Stacks.
Q: Why did FB’s price crash so quickly?
A: Multiple factors contributed: poor market timing after the inscription hype faded, lack of real-use applications on its network, and heavy initial selling pressure from miners and airdrop recipients due to unfavorable token distribution.
Q: Can forked coins ever outperform Bitcoin?
A: Historically, very few have. Most forks inherit Bitcoin’s codebase but fail to introduce transformative improvements or gain sufficient network effects. Without strong developer support and unique value propositions, they tend to lag behind BTC over time.
Q: Does being part of the “Bitcoin ecosystem” guarantee success?
A: No. Market validation depends on actual utility, adoption, and innovation—not just association with Bitcoin. Projects must deliver tangible value to users or risk becoming obsolete despite riding early hype waves.
Conclusion
The rise of Bitcoin past $100,000 marks a new era of legitimacy and institutional embrace. Yet within its expanding orbit, not all projects thrive equally.
Both Bitcoin Cash and Fractal Bitcoin illustrate how proximity to Bitcoin does not guarantee success. BCH suffers from stagnation due to technological limitations and leadership vacuum. FB, though technically innovative, fell victim to poor timing, weak ecosystem development, and flawed token incentives.
As the crypto market matures, capital is becoming increasingly discerning. Investors and users alike are prioritizing real utility, sustainable token models, and long-term vision over nostalgia or speculative hype.
For future projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem—from Layer 2s to new inscription standards—the lesson is clear: alignment with Bitcoin’s ethos is essential, but it’s not enough. True value creation comes from solving real problems at scale.
👉 Stay ahead of the next wave of Bitcoin innovation—explore what’s coming next in the ecosystem.