Reminds me of a Team Fortress 2 griefing video where they kept putting turrets underneath the map that couldn't be killed but could shoot players.

"If they didn't want you to do that then why did they put it in the game?"

One view of smart contracts is that the code defines the intent/agreement, so if the code allows it, the it is, ipso facto, not theft.

Of course,

Seems like these smart contacts should include written contracts as well to outline what the code is intended to do, if you can’t rely on the code.

At that point, why have the smart contract? If you want 'automation', just get a trustworthy third party to execute the financials for you , as is already done with (for example) most real estate contracts.

> trustworthy third party

Merits aside, sidestepping the need for this is the whole point of blockchain.

Apparently you can’t even trust the um, paper, it’s written on

Why have smart contracts indeed, if executing the code in the contract is called a "hack." Perhaps in the case in the article a trusted third party would have been superior and there wouldn't be $10M missing.