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.
Perhaps it is better to just move on. You know, like a bad relationship.
Well, this is an option, for sure.
...
If I am the only one from the entire community being upset about this development, I wont mention it anymore.
It doesnt look like an option to me, merely an anodyne observation drawn from an idly unsupported analogy.
But no, you're not the only one with concerns. I share your concerns (perhaps not as keenly, I admit) but am reluctant to simply pitch up to such a meandering discussion. Speculation on the motivations or future actions of the digger is condemned to remain exactly that, speculation. The model provides no useful predictive component.
Of considerably more use would be some glimmering of understanding of the collective and individual perceptions formed by those who are directly or indirectly affected by the change. The fact that upwards of 2500 altcoins have been launched to little significant effect suggests to me that the phenomenon doesnt have a core explanation rooted in either economics or cryptography and I've found that discussions which fail to acknowledge this factor are inevitably doomed to peter out without establishing anything useful.
Out of sheer bloody-mindedness (or perhaps a slightly wider perspective, or perhaps even the fact that I grok TANSTAAFL), I maintain my CLAMS locally in a running node. Its not that I mistrust dooglus, far from it, but even he admits that bulking up on JD might not be all that good for CLAMS long-term health as a cryptocurrency and I cant gainsay his argument. In consequence, I heartily welcome the recent initiatives to improve CLAMS overall UX.
Each launched altcoin has the capacity to become a separate collective intelligence. Some starting conditions might appear to be more favourable than others but its way too early to be making those kind of calls on a phenomenon that we can barely characterise, let alone understand. fwiw, my take on it is that its an unfortunate instance of stigmergy arising from the imprint left by the import of contaminating aspects of Bitcoins irredeemably flawed distribution. Unfortunately, it seems to be an inherent contamination for any proof-of-chain approach that piggybacks on Bitcoins distribution.
Im more interested in the perception of CLAMS brand values and how theyre interpreted in relation to the current context. The JD-herd mentality suggests that the
intention behind CLAMS distribution has faltered; from the nether regions, it seems as were only just now seeing serious attempts to promote the advanced features of CLAMS that make it a worthwhile currency to use rather than hodl. Had that effort been instigated earlier, JD would likely be playing less of a role in the coins economics and users would be holding different perceptions of CLAMS attractiveness, perceptions less likely to be disrupted by manipulations of the exchange fiat conversion rate.
Cheers
Graham