The way this discussion and solution seem to be winding its ways to is that early clam diggers not only have a disproportionate say in the coin network but they also have a right to exclude future stakeholders from exercising their opinions through the Clamchain. The big one is that current stakeholders can expropriate the property of others without compensation if it is deemed in the interest of the community. I call this the "I got mine, jack, screw you" process of policy making. These events really expose what stakeholder democracy is and it isn't pretty. Early adopters, special interest groups and certain individuals claim a seat at the table which ends up excluding a large portion of the citizenry as it diminishes their votes in the election and gives an out sized voice to the loudest or with the most money.
This paragraph from navaman pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. It seems more like an act of tyranny than an act of democracy to allow early CLAM adopters to change the rules to screw later adopters. That seems to break the promises made in the initial distribution. Doing this, IMO, undermines any faith people could have in the long-term stability of this project.
Why does everyone think it's the Early adopters that want to change the coin? I was very early to this party, and do NOT want a change. If we're to believe Dooglas, it's people in the JD chat box, and or large JD investors that want the change. He seemed not really care if things changed, but wanted to open the lines of discussion.
I'm sorry if I suggested that early adopters were a monolithic group, that wasn't my intention. What I was referring to, essentially, was those who dug before any potential rule change vs those who dig after. I hope that clarifies. Again, this isn't to suggest that everyone who has already dug their clams is of the same mind, clearly this isn't the case. I'm just trying to contrast the group who has already dug with those who would be affected by a rule change (those who haven't yet).