This is not correct. BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm kicked in last night (difficulty +400%)  and BCH mining profitability tanked.
BTC is now ~3.5x more profitable to mine , and as a result most of the hashpower has returned to BTC .
It would seem that at least a large part of the movements this weekend were the result of miners gaming the BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm, combined with a dash of FOMO and pump / dump dynamics.
BCH hardforks today to make an emergency fix to the difficulty adjustment algorithm , so longer term it will be interesting to see what happens to the price, once the incentives for miners to game the difficulty algorithm disappear.
Hopefully the new algorithm allows the BCH difficulty to stabilise and the two chains can coexist.
It increasingly seems that forks will be commonplace, and as such the bitcoin protocol could probably benefit from built in replay protection and a more responsive difficulty adjustment algorithm.
After all, if Segwit have already got their payoff, what incentive do they have to support 2x?
Who cares what they signed or didn't sign? They did sign the HK Agreement and then broke it shortly after. They have proven that they don't give a shit about such agreements.
NY Agreement didn't lack developers (just not the Bitcoin Core Developers) and they didn't lack community support. Bitcoin Core is just very good at controlling communication channels through Censorship and Propaganda.
Segwit2x did what it was intended to do, but what that was varied wildy between the various actors involved. It never bothered with deployment scenarios or any sort of definition what the intended end game was, and how it was to be managed going forward, not because the people involved were somehow incompetent but because those were not relevant to the initiative.
Some saw it as a golden opportunity to pump an otherwise uninteresting hard fork, some as a possbility to do an ICO, some as free publicity for their startup and some to make a name for themselves as narrators of the Bitcoin story. It did all that and more. We'll probably see more similar initiatives in the future, but the community will probably care less about them going forward.
The theory I like is that they were too gullible and trusting. Their stated mission was to unite the two camps big blockers and segwit supporters and to avoid a divide in the community. What they didn't realize was that the community was already divided and it's impossible to unite Core's blind focus on off chain scaling with on chain scaling.
I thought cryptocurrencies are fobidden in China now
It's complicated, basically.