Yeah, but you have to have people switch to that chain.

Miners won't because it would devalue their coin.

New buyers might because they can "buy cheap"

It wouldn't be Bitcoin then; a change in rules creates a new coin. There would have to be incredibly strong incentives for people to accept a fork that would debase their assets.

Nit: it would also require a hard, not a soft fork.

There's a soft fork coming up for taproot requiring a super-consensus of 90% miners. It will likely go through and still be bitcoin afterwards. Thinking you might not understand the difference between the various types of forks the protocol can undergo.

https://taprootactivation.com/

> and it would only take a soft fork.

No, it would be a hard-fork and be rejected by all nodes that weren't explicitly updated to accept it.

> Presumably in an attempt to grow their business and create actual value.

Or not, you don't know. Maybe a friend of the board wants to have a controlling stake in the company and that's the reason.

It (in theory) doesn't reduce the _market cap_, but it reduces the voting power of existing stockholdings and that is certainly bad for those shareholders.