Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again.

The fact that didn't happen meant most people didn't want it to happen. If people did want a reset to compensate for the insecurity in the DAO it would have happened.

"Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again."

Aren't you confusing Etherium with The Dao ? Yes, the dao needed to be abandoned due to its insecurity, but my understanding is that the Etherium base itself was not at fault.

Sure, the EVM may be fine, but the biggest flaws lie in the design of Solidity. Solidity makes it very easy to introduce reentrancy bugs like the one that led the DAO to be exploited. As long as Solidity remains the de facto smart contract programming language, I don't expect overall security of smart contracts to improve much.

My point is that if 60 million dollars were stolen in Eth without no recourse that would permanently tarnish the name Ether. Nobody would care that the DAO did not represent the whole project, the fact a huge portion of the economy was pushed and then destroyed would ruin the brand entirely.

Bitcoin had to hard fork to revert transactions early on due to a bug in the code (not a bug in code written on the platform, a bug in the platform itself).