The approaching ETH block 2463000 fork illustrates several strategic issues for ETH,ETC. ETH vs ETC is a good laboratory for crypto issues because you have two very closely related coins.
ETH in a sense always has the initiative in terms of future BC tweaking over ETC in that up until now, it seemed obvious that ETC would have to at least adopt any ETH protocol improvements.
Apparently ETC may not adopt every protocol change and if they do, it may not be in a timely fashion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EthereumClassic/comments/57ipia/statement_on_the_hardfork_to_address_spam_attacks/The operational issues are:
1) Degree of centralization. Since ETH is more centralized and a more top down organization, they can react much more quickly to threats and competition driven changes, whereas the consensus decentralized ETC approach in theory would argue are they responding accurately and in accordance with a coin's charter, at a cost in speed of decision making.
2) So the upcoming ETH fork presents a practical problem for ETC users, which geth/parity proxy do you use? Limiting it to just geth, there is geth17 the prefork version. geth18 the post fork ETH version and then ETC's geth_X with some sort of partial adoption. (FWIW geth18 still has the support/oppose dao fork option) This is a problem because, what are the exchanges and pools going to do while the ETC community is deciding what changes are going to be incorporated into geth_X? Even after the changes are agreed upon by whatever mechanism, it will still take a few more days for the exchanges and pools to update.
In theory, ETH could actually put some hurt on ETC or any other competitor, just by hardforking say every 10 days. There is no way in it's current decision cycle, ETC could stay up. In case this seems ridiculous, major corporate IT systems are probably patched around the same frequency. People might laugh, but if you have a $100 billion block chain, you might be looking at once a week forks.