Although this May sound horrible, it's quite legally correct. I run a banking group in London, and this is what the regulations call for. When someone is not actively using his personal or real property, it can be subject to adverse possession, where 3rd parties can simply legally take possession of the property after being in possession for quite a length of tim.

You can Google the doctrine of adverse possession yourselves for more information. Banks probably have some kind of adverse possession type clause for their inactive, dormant accounts.

Adverse possession becomes oh so natural in a decentralized landscape like crypto, where everything is public. In theory every bitcoin belongs to the public who are part of the blockchain. No one owns anything, rather, you can have access to bitcoins. There is no official rule that there is only one owner per private key. Rather, it's more like you either havery access to bitcoins from whatever means, or you don't.

That said, it's fitting for a majority decision whether or not clearly abandoned coins are redistributed or not. Let the decentralized majority decide to adversely possess dormant bitcoins. No one can complain because it is a majority vote