[rspeer]

The "contract" was evaluated according to the rules that supposedly made it a contract, not hacked. Getting a bad deal in a contract is not getting hacked.

There will be more bad deals in the future because Solidity is badly designed. Mistakes are normal indeed, and Ethereum is certainly not done making them. Promising "this time it's for real, no more take-backs" is just increasing the risk unless they buy some insurance or something.

What's the indication that anyone is aware of the risks now, or that Ethereum devs are warning people of the risks? The investment in Ethereum has increased -- there are banks getting involved in this shit. The risk has not decreased. And yet the devs are still not handing back the investors' money and asking them to kindly wait until more security or insurance features are designed.

[Jabanga]

It was hacked from the perspective of ordinary people.

I address the sanctity of the protocol in an earlier comment:

>The rules of a mature Ethereum protocol should be neutral to the intentions of users, including those that one would reasonably characterize as hackers, but Ethereum was not a mature protocol at the time. It was effectively in early-stage beta.

>What's the indication that anyone is aware of the risks now, or that Ethereum devs are warning people of the risks?

That's what I've observed. I haven't compiled instances of social behaviour that indicates this so I have no objective evidence on-hand.

>The investment in Ethereum has increased -- there are banks getting involved in this shit

They're not putting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ETH in complex smart contracts like the DAO.