I think, in this cryptocoin-space most of all, the "free market" phrase is quite misused. Free markets work because entrepreneurs are free to combine capital -however they like- to offer goods and services to customers. However, the customers themselves don't need any freedom other than the freedom to go to a competitor. Google doesn't give me a choice of search-algorithms, or even search-options (unless I specifically ask for a few simple ones)...it just finds what I want.
Satoshi's innovations allow us to freely combine code to make new pieces of software, but the software itself is highly restrictive: Bitcoin doesn't create digital scarcity as much as it prevents double-spending. Soft forks (which "add" functionality) are literally defined by restrictions.
So, unlike in entrepreneurship / development, and unlike in personalize-able-software (game-hotkeys, desktop background, social media profiles), I regard every single choice given to the user as a failure of the protocol.
In fact, over the last few days, for Whitepaper 1.4 (the last and almost-certainly final or semi-final version), I have been going through all the choices about fees, prices, branching to make absolutely sure they are replaced by high-quality feedback loops.
My current thoughts are for 1 initial distribution, copied into two competing branches, listing-fees as a step-function of decisions already added, and Voters using a >phi vote to  set the "Branch Rules" text for the far future, and  propose and agree to Branch into two daughter-branches. These decisions are to maximize stability and security in both the technical and economic domains.