The problem with the "code is law" principle is that it's also the version of history where a single attacker controls 15% of all Eth in existence. I think most participants probably would agree with that principle in general, but the practicalities outweighed principle in this situation.

(the fact that the creator of Ethereum was heavily invested in the DAO doubtless played a role as well... it's different when it's your money that got stolen, and he had the power to do something about it.)

Still though, people don't understand that the legal system is a feature, not a bug. A neutral arbiter that can judge the spirit of the contract and come to a decision that resolves the matter fairly for everybody... that way you don't need to guarantee bug-free code forever.

There was a post here a while back that made the interesting point that essentially everything cryptocurrency attempts to do is anti-user and the problems they claim to solve would actually be viewed as features by most people. For example, no chargebacks! But chargebacks are a good thing, if the good turns out to be significantly not as described then you can get your money back. Or - immutable history! But it's actually quite nice when the bank can remove fraudulent charges when my wallet gets stolen, I quite like having that recourse.

3% merchant fees for Visa don't seem so bad compared to the DAO hack and Solidity and all that other shit.