Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 17, 2016, 08:30:50 PM

Vitalik did everything wrong. Last night the potential conflicts-of-interest created by his vast personal holdings of ETH and DAO were actualized.

He should have told DAO to FOAD. Instead he made a bad situation much worse by throwing exchange operators and users under the bus in a vain attempt to save ETH's highest-profile project.

DAO's incompetent devs and greedy bagholders are solely responsible for the consequences of this fiasco.

But now we have moral hazard spreading to ETH and exchanges as the rot spreads upward.

Is this type of situation going to happen again?

It seems inevitable, given all the dubious low-security shitcoins Polo lists, one or more will be hacked in the future.

When MAID and DASH get hacked, will Polo freeze trading, etc for tangentially related coins like BTC, forcing traders to lock in their losses?

This godawful precedent implies the answer is yes, they will.

Agreed. And I still struggle with how the DAO can even claim it is a problem, as the DAO terms expressly say the code supercedes the description / intent.

Quote

The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAOs code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAOs code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAOs code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAOs code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation.

https://daohub.org/explainer.html

So I guess future DAO will need to have a disclaimer that there are situations where the code doesn't control, and therefore you have to look to intent... Which basically means opening the same can of worms lawyers and courts have been dealing with for ages, but "smart contracts" were supposed to avoid.

It would be hilarious if the "hacker" sued the DAO for breach of contract if the "stolen" funds are returned!