Interesting analysis.
What I always find interesting about these crypto incidents is how quiet everyone is, including the parties that end up "losing" significant amounts irreversibly. There's never an investigation.
While counterparty (XCP) isn't as rich as Ethererum, I wonder: is it adequate for what many of these ICOs are intended? It's unfortunate that it likely requires higher transaction fees but it seems much simpler to me (and trustless).
Oh look. The ethdevs lost more money. I guess we'll expect to see another hard fork, with more sinister language? (edit: 1)
Yeah, this whole episode is what's wrong with Ethereum. Solidity was sold as a cure-all. And its a bugridden festering sore that leaves money for the takings. These side effects should be caught if there was a good lang used: and Im talking about a possibly nonturing complete DSL.
Instead, we have innovative companies that are building on this quicksand thinking its a good foundation; its not. How many more millions will be lost before someone goes back to the drawing board and does this monetary infrastructure right?
(1) https://labs.mwrinfosecurity.com/assets/Uploads/_resampled/R...
This is why I'm really interested in Tezos. The promise of Tezos is that the governance will happen on the Tezos blockchain via voting by holders of Tezos. Decred is also doing something similar, but I don't think Decred has smart contracts, whereas Tezos will.
Here's a recent Tedx Talk by the CTO of Tezos. https://youtu.be/SbaVNkyGT3M
PS. I did not contribute to the Tezos ICO and I don't hold any Decred.