Thanks for the kind words Richard!
I think the adaptability of a token model really depends. A few (in no way exhaustive) cases:
- If you have a governance token, then you could probably change your governance model (e.g., from linear voting to quadratic voting, or altering the weights of a quadratic voting system) if you have enough support for the model change.
- It’s possible, though probably not trivial, to change how a medium of exchange or staking tokens work. Depending on governance structure, this may be a unilateral decision or a decision made by token holders collectively. This would undoubtedly require substantial re-architecting of the system though, so as I said probably not trivial
- For currency tokens like Ether or Bitcoin, I think protocol updates like the one you mentioned are again possible but non-trivial. In the example you mentioned, “all” you’d need to do would be to get 50%+1 to agree to the change. That’s a straightforward proposition, but quite challenging to achieve in practice.
Your last question is an interesting one. I can’t claim to be an expert in debate about whether protocol updates should occur natively vs. via forking. My hot-take on it is that for model “tuning” it’s probably better to build that natively into the protocol, but for larger changes probably better via forking. But as I said definitely not an opinion I can stand by too strongly as I’m not the expert.