People not caring is probably just due to the crazy risk and volatility in crypto in general.
Again like I said, I don't know why this article doesn't point out how benign most of these things are.
so for the one example you presented, thats right it isn't a complete solution, and that one example requires its own individual discussion. This article doesn't distinguish about the level of severity of the vulnerability
the reality is that most of these are as benign as any random website not getting 100% in a cursory test
The distributed ledger technology makes it easy to offload accounting and user management, which helps you quickly bootstrap the supply and demand side of a network much faster while coupling that with the capital you need or simply want.
These are typically catch-22 problems for other kinds of networks, VC backed or otherwise. It is dime a dozen in silicon valley to have a company that raised 10 million in a series A to barely have 10,000 users before ultimately closing the doors and giving nothing to its vested common stock employee/holders.
Not too much different with ICOs, except people get more than nothing and don't have to wait for it.
> Once an ICO starts, the contract cannot be changed and is open to everyone
Many teams have upgraded their contract without an issue. The market has stopped reacting to it completely. They just release a new contract and airdrop it to all existing holders. Notify the exchanges, and it is business as usual.
This is more of a FYI. I'm not really curious about what this particular research group is doing, or why this article uses "vulnerability" without the distinction of how benign these things are.