Yes, it sucks that they did not write tighter code and allowed a gotcha.... But when that happens in the legal world, people do pay for it.
Instead, because one of founders put up a lot of ETH, they changed the rules of the game. Now, the question is, "How close to the CEO of ConsenSys do you need to be to roll out bad contracts?".
That's what makes it worthless.
The change in Ethereum was "voted" for by a majority of hash power (but of course as influenced by the Ethereum leadership, so people had the popup in the client along with a recommendation what to vote for). So isn't that correction also in the spirit of Ethereum? Miners decide.
How about fixing obvious bugs, but otherwise upholding contracts?
To elaborate, it's especially hard to trust ETH code because it's not provable in any way. Bugs will hide, and people will find them. If ETH wasn't turing-complete this would be less problematic (because static analysis would be much easier, and possible), but as it stands there's no way to trust Ethereum contracts.
The rules aren't: "the code is the contract".
The rules are: "the code that is accepted by a majority of hashing power is the contract."