> But each side also contains only half as much money... I don't think this is correct, if it were split in half each side would start at the same point with t

> But each side also contains only half as much money... I don't think this is correct, if it were split in half each side would start at the same point with the exact same amount of money. Unless you were talking about the amount of money each half controlled maybe? But I thought the point of sharding was to enable double-spending which would only really concern itself with the amounts the attacker(s) controlled. Well, I also recall reading about using sharding to destroy faith in the network as a whole but that doesn't seem to apply here.