SuperClam, coins are not corporations. In the latter case, there is a legal right to elect a board, which in turn gives control over management and ultimately the assets (shareholders can even vote to dissolve the corporation, which gives them access to the assets directly).

There are no such powers that exist on the part of coin holders. There are really only two things that coin holders can do:

1. Stake according to the network rules and their own individual best interests and without collusion, which makes the network secure provided that the stake is adequately distributed.

2. Individually or in collusion with other coin holders, stake maliciously and "51% attack" the network. This can include: a) blocking all transactions in a sort of doomsday button to destroy the coin, b) selectively blocking transactions (and/or blocks) to gain some advantage for the attacker, c) rewrite the chain to perform double spend attacks.

This idea of coin holder voting is creating a system that facilities and to an extent legitimizes #2. It makes the entire system less secure and therefore ultimately less valuable, even though it may seem expedient in the short term for the purposes of "governance", especially if you happen to be in the majority.

As I've already stated earlier, the best ways to make changes to a coin are:

1. By overwhelming consensus of the community (such that there is no significant opposition and everyone just goes along with the change). This obviously does not exist for rewriting the digging rules. It does often exist for other changes that are routinely made to coins such as bug fixes, tweaks to transaction fees, some forms of new features, etc.

2. By creating a new coin with different rules such that the people can decide via a market process which to support. This requires permission from no one since anyone can create a new coin.