Paanchi and his lackeys really would've benefitted from some patience. In the book of Helaman, Pahoran dies, leaving three sons who contended for the judgement seat: Pahoran, Paanchi, and Pacumeni.

Pahoran wins the vote, and Paanchi is so wroth, he begins to stir up the people in rebellion against his brother. In the old days of the Nephites, perhaps this might have worked, but ever since Captain Moroni got the laws changed to make it legal for him to put to death anyone who dissented from the Nephites--or attempted acts of sedition--the Nephites are pretty swift with their justice, and Paanchi is put to death.

Because of anger over this, Gadianton and Kishkumen, who were sympathizers hoping to gain power over the government through association with Paanchi, assassinate Pahoran, leaving the third son, Pacumeni, to rule. (Mormon (who is abridging this part of the Nephite history) goes on to credit Gadianton and Kishkumen with the establishment of a secret band of murderers "to get gain", which causes the utter destruction of the Nephites some 500 years later.)

Pacumeni is shortly thereafter slain by King Tubaloth's new general, Coriantumer who plunders the Nephite capital city of Zarahemla.

Now follow.

If Paanchi had just chilled, and backed down. Pahoran would've been slain in the sacking of Zarahemla, instead of Pacumeni. Pahoran (and his lackeys) would've controled the Nephites without the need of intrigue or sedition (which Paanchi was executed for). Sure he would've been a sucky ruler and the Nephites would not have benefitted from one who had supporters who had secret murders in their hearts, but I think it is telling, nonetheless. Paanchi could've gotten his desires had he been willing to wait a year for the Lamanites. Then again one of character as Paanchi is unlikely to possess a virtue like patience.