Yes, because your issue with that person, or persons, has exactly 0 relevance.

The whole way down the line. you're comparing apples to oranges and declaring that grapes are the better of the 2 because they aren't bananas.

You're going on about a case where a "bad actor" bypassed the protocol and and consensus rules, then comparing that to where you feel cheated because protocol was followed, all the while saying that it was OK to steal the currency from everyone.

You're comparing a few hours that minimally impacted any innocent party to the unSafecoin centralized cliche disregarding all consensus rules and decided to steal the currency from everyone's accounts rendering days worth of valid transactions mutable.

When you actually sit back and objectively look at what you are comparing, the unSafecoin centralized cliche became the bad actors by bypassing protocol and consensus rules in the protocol. You're pointing to what you think is a parallel, but the unSafecoin centralized cliche isn't playing the role in that parallel that you delusionally want to think they are.