HOWEVER, if this promise threatens to destroy the entire CLAM network, which it does, then I feel any and all changes to prevent this not only justified but also necessary.
Why?
Perhaps it is better to just move on. You know, like a bad relationship.
If you think CLAMs is mortally wounded by this digger (and potentially others like it) then just LET IT DIE.
Have you read
Antifragility? Failure of components is absolutely essential to a larger healthy system. Trying to bail out bad ideas with any sort of desperate measures is not helpful, it is harmful. Let the experiment run its course and learn from it.
There are thousands of coins, hundreds of them are somewhat active. I think there are good things about CLAM and I've said so, but if it dies because the distribution turns out to have been fatally bad, then life will go on and, then we all learned something valuable from it. The knowledge of which ideas seemed to be good and which bad will live on.