Your example with ETH and ETC is not correct. Because there was a planned hardfork in ETH blockchain. But community decided that they don't want that hardfork and so ETC was born as another coin based on old ETH blockchain. No were stolen wallets in those situation. And also, pay your attention, that community decided, not devs.
And my examples are correct.
...
Source wiki :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic"In May 2016, a venture capital fund called The DAO built on Ethereum raised around $168 million, with the intention of investing in projects using smart contracts.[8] In the same month a paper was released detailing security vulnerabilities with The DAO that could allow ether to be stolen.[9] In June, 3.6 million Ether (approximately $50 million USD) was taken from accounts in The DAO and moved to another account without the owners' consent, exploiting one of the vulnerabilities that had been raised in May. Members of The DAO and the Ethereum community debated what actions, if any, should occur to resolve the situation. A vote occurred and in July 2016 it was decided to implement a hard fork in the Ethereum code and to move the Ether taken in the exploit to a new smart contract through which it would be restored to the owners from whom it had been taken.[10]
Ethereum Classic came into existence when some members of the Ethereum community rejected the hard fork on the grounds of "immutability", the principle that the blockchain cannot be changed, and decided to keep using the unforked version of Ethereum.[11]"
Do you see "community debated", "community rejected the hard fork", "a vote" or you see "hardfork was done in silence and only then devs told to community about it" ?