I see your point on transparency and voting mechanisms.  In general I think that is a great idea. Implementation might be a challenge.

However I would point out that in this particular case it is the fault of the exchange operator not having adequate controls when on-ramping a new protocol; specifically I am referring to allowing withdrawals without manual intervention by operator staff.

But be that as it may...

Would any entity have the same chance to ask the XCP community to insure them?  Basically insure the counterparty risk because he is unable to meet his obligations? Even 50 years from now?

That is the way to be fair about this over time, not some arbitrary fork in the road with a one liner that can easily be commented out. i actually laughed when i read that one...