I think this scenario is unlikely, but I think I understand why they explicitly added that wording. I don't think they have any interest in forking themselves, but if there is a major event where Bitcoin does fork and a majority of node operators and miners switch to the fork Blackrock needs some legal authority to participate in the vote.

However, I don't think this means they will fork Bitcoin with a PoS version (Why not just advocate for Eth at that point?) because at the end of the day Blackrock is launching this ETF due to demand from their OWN CLIENTS.

Do we honestly believe that say, 20 years from now when people are using these instruments as exposure to their 401k and Blackrock suddenly decides to fork their holdings into a new shitcoin people will just be OK with their portfolio tanking harder than they have ever seen before? Because that is exactly what would happen and Blackrock knows it. A fork is a completely different asset. Not only that, but I am sure despite how big Blackrock is there is plenty of legal trouble they can still be accountable for.

I think if anything just like you and me did, they will eventually come to a more clear understanding of Bitcoin and instead encourage greener Bitcoin mining initiatives. I don't know why people assume that isn't on the table. We really like to think of all the toxic scenarios too much.