I think it is very important to realize that changing the rules along the way is not necessarily compromising the "foundation", so long as it is done for the right reasons, ie as I have stated before, as long as we don't change rules with the purpose of preserving the monetary value of the coin. If we do it to preserve the "fair distribution", then it's ok. Understand, it is not always possible for founders to foresee all possible contingencies from the very beginning. That is why the US constitution had 27 amendments. Did the amendments compromise the constitution? No, because they were enacted in the spirit of preserving and BUILDING upon the the Constitution and what it was trying to accomplish. We have an opportunity now to build upon and improve this coin.
If you disagree, please reason with me. Lets resolve this with logic and not emotions.
A change to prevent digging is only "to preserve the monetary value of the coin". Unless you can convince me that preventing new people from digging clams is somehow fair. "Sorry, we distributed clams to all wallets, but because you waited to long, you lose out."
Slowing digging (IE only allowed 1 dig per day) would preserve the fair distribution model. Preventing digging or reducing the claim amount is only fair to those who made the deadline.
Just so I'm clear, I hold a fairly large amount of clams and I'm in the red at the current price, but this is more about the coin then the price. If I was worried about the price, I would be in the make a change camp too.