I mean, if the "hacker" wins, then it shows how impractically dangerous "code as contract" can be - you better be damn sure it's correct.
And if the "hacker" loses, it invalidates code as contract completely. The DAO claimed the code, and only the code matters. But what the DAO claims doesn't mean shit if courts say that is not true. Your whole idea is now just bullshit.
I cannot think of many code projects that have a higher value-per-line-of-code than this contract.
Sadly, it appears that not only was there not the needed QA but the leaders of this project were alerted to the exact problem in code 5 days ago and they responded by declaring that there was no risk.
The actual problem + the response makes this feel like amateur hour.
Now everyone involved understands why things that exist in 'old finance' like contracts and IPOs are scrutinized by large, expensive auditors.
Well, if the fork plan goes through I'd say you're wrong because it could clearly be rolled back when there was a problem. You cannot easily do that with a space shuttle.
I don't think it does. You've replaced expensive legal fees with an automatically executed contract that costs you nothing after initial setup. As long as most people end up satisfied with their outcomes, then there's still great value in smart contracts for this reason alone, even if some unhappy customers still end up in court.