But that's a better way of doing it, isn't it? A new currency poses the question of additional value to the relevant population and the population determines it

But that's a better way of doing it, isn't it? A new currency poses the question of additional value to the relevant population and the population determines its value. This new supply in the form of another cryptocurrency will go through price-discovery and it may turn out that it will fail to reach or maintain any significant market capitulation. Rather than some central authority (ab)using their position to weigh into the answer to that question that they themselves are asking. I see this equivalent to updating a contract unilaterally and arguing it is an upgrade versus letting the contract that both parties agreed on stay intact and sign additional contracts. If the government had printed SARS-COV-2-USD, we could have collectively decided it is backed by hot air and valued it differently but instead we were forced to dilute the supply of our already existent supply.