Quote from: spartak_t on June 21, 2016, 09:19:32 AM

Agreed, but I did in on purpose. And do you know why? Because most of the people are measuring their holdings in fiat (or Bitcoin), and like the "attacker" said - "Money talks". I hate it, but its the truth...

Lets examine who are the real group at fault here based on the extent to which each stakeholder acted in a professional manner according to their role in the whole debacle:

Ether Devs: As far as I can see have acted in good faith. Tested the network for a long time before going live. Network has performed more or less as expected.

DAO Devs: Wrote a script to run on the Ethereum network. Tested it. Not well enough as it turns out but no software can ever be tested to production standards without actually being in production so there's nothing new there. Maybe 6 out of 10 but not jail material.

DAO Investors: Bought a product with no assets, no equity, no premises, no projects, no clients. no staff and no reserves. Did not attach any conditions to their funding. Did not request any security nor any quantification of return on investment.

Lets compare the due diligence carried out by the DAO investors compared to a regular benchmark - a bank lending on a property purchase.

I'm maybe being a bit harsh on the equity front because DAO holders did actually receive tokens for their investment which gives them a share in the fund that's tradeable. However, the difference is that the loan is always owed back to the lender whereas the DAO was always going to get drained, whether by hack or through spending.

Also, note this: A good while before the DAO got going, I messed around with the concepts on this page here which show you how to create your own cryptocurrency on top of Ethereum:

Copy, Paste and make your own DAO Wink

https://www.ethereum.org/token

I found this very interesting and saw lots of uses for it. However, when the DAO emerged, I did get a bit of a fright when I realised that somebody had basically just applied that bit of code and asked people to invest in the resulting tokens. It's something that anyone can do - make your own money and sell it.

Obviously, since it's just a piece of code and not an actual asset with a long and robust trade history like, say Bitcoin which has nearly 8 years of growth behind it, its value is basically zero unless the investment has some other conditions backing it that help to insure the veracity of the contract.

So who is really at fault here ? To me, the DAO was ridiculously overvalued and the blame for that lies squarely at the door of investors for not doing due diligence.

Also, as far as the subject of the thread goes, despite the serious side, there is some humour to be had out of the sight of such a frenzied feeding fest that turns its participants so abruptly into a hapless flock of newly shorn sheep.