While it's a balancing act, they bought it with the legal understanding that they could veto certain actions because those required 100% agreement. Surely it's

While it's a balancing act, they bought it with the legal understanding that they could veto certain actions because those required 100% agreement. Surely it's fine print BS to say "sure, X requires you to agree, but modifying the agreement so you no longer have to agree in the future and then immediately holding another vote does not require you to agree". At that point, there is literally no value to the first part of that sentence.