I didn't say the hackers would steal it from the bank, but even so that wouldn't matter.
Banks have no legal obligation except in a very few cases of certain types of card misuse. And how do the courts make you whole when hackers have sent money to Russia?
> especially if we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
No, only if you're talking about hundreds of billions. Small and medium theft is ignored, large theft and incompetence may be bailed out if you'll take someone down with you.
> In "meat-space" the legal system would have very easily halted this insanity
This one slow-motion train wreck? Sure. Well, maybe. Unless the attacker had done something across jurisdictions, etc. Then it'd be years before anything, even freezing an account, could be done.
> "theft and mismanagement" is always a risk when you're lending people money
No, you don't get it. The point is to remove Kickstarter, etc. The projects themselves are still an issue of course, but that's at least the point of the exercise.
>>* Paypal has frozen and seized many individual and project accounts*
> Irrelevant.
Not at all, it's one of the risks inherent in the classical system. Every third project has a horror story about frozen funds and that's not counting what the individuals themselves go through before they donate.
>> credit card companies are forbidden to let you donate to Wikileaks
> Irrelevant.
Only if you wouldn't donate to WikiLeaks or a related project. But yeah, I can see how that wouldn't interest you.
> Escrows and agents already existed long before smart contracts, so that's not a useful feature.
Not trusted escrow, your funds could be frozen for reasons like donating to WikiLeaks, or simply stolen from the agent.
> but you haven't demonstrated "tons of features".
No, you haven't acknowledged them. You're a thirsty equine by a large body of water but I can't do this last bit for you.