My concern is not about future whale diggers, my concern is:
"Why would future users of Clam, buy Clams, knowing that the protocol can change
if majority holders don't like something about the protocol, at that time?"
My concern is future users/investors.
Exactly that is what i thought too. Though i think that danger is now avoided isn't it? Price stabilizes and the fork is dead or am i missing something?
You're missing that this CLAMour "vote on changes" concept was pushed at the very same time as all the talk about changing the rules to cut digging, by some of the same people who: 1. Were also talking about cutting digging, and 2. Very likely hold a large number of CLAMs giving them a large influence over the vote. So if you think the danger of undermining long term stability and trust with rule changes made for short term economic reasons is entirely avoided, I can't entirely share your optimism. But I hope you are right, and you may be right.
I do agree with the sentiment that some have expressed that
We Survived the Great Digging Panic of 2015 and with the right response that can make the coin stronger and more resilient. But then you still have some people approaching it more from a FUD perspective ("Okay, but what about the next whale digger?! zOMG!!"), sadly.
In any case, if you can't trust on the fundamental rules of a cryptocurrency then confidence in that altcoin is lost quite quickly since you are at mercy of the whales of that altcoin. If whales think that is a good idea then i think it might be a bad awakening for them.