SHA / GPU / CPU have different marketing and penetration characteristics for coin / merchant / mining...therefore different economic considerations, but you can still apply such a model across types. All three will be around. So will the market for skilled human labor.
CPU is unglamorous, but ubiquitous - they'll have the greatest number of potential users, most who may not be looking to specialize more. They're commonality will stabilize prices near mining costs. This incentivizes users to focus on added value (i.e., service quality), instead of just traded or exchanged in distributed markets (price quality). "Make work" becomes "make use".
A "wallet fork" is nothing more than one entity requesting acknowledgement that a wallet address is separate from the parent entity. Pretty much the basis for property rights, corporate partnerships, industry standardization, version control, or configuration management....depending on law, business, industry, engineering, or software.
The most basic action needed to allow "wallet forks" is voting - i.e., a wallet requesting "emancipation" by voting for its parent organization's wallet, and that wallet voting back to acknowledge. That creates an objective record and "system" classification between the two that can be community verified and enforced...
MMC has voting! MMC has property rights! MMC can develop its own "industry common law"!
Think of it as "homesteading" a blockchain...