If the community wants to remain a community then normally someone else will step up, that's the power of community, it's bigger than just a web site. In the case of couch surfing v2 seems to be going strong.
Knowing a bit about it (having been a volunteer for the org) I think the crash was extremely badly handled. For better or worse, many people were relying on the service to find places to stay, connect with people in foreign cities, and so on. Leaving those people high and dry is bad karma. Likewise, users should be encouraged to make "backups" in the form of phone nos, email addresses, etc if the reliability of the site can't be guaranteed.
I think the problem is a classic one in technology. The geeks at the helm are over confident. Their self belief clouds their judgement with regards to backups, failure planning, and so on.
Certainly, if this happened to me and I came to that decision, I'd put up a forum for everyone so that they could engage and figure out post-startup plans. But that's me.
As far as I'm aware, during the CouchSurfing crash, some volunteers set up a separate forum, but it wasn't sanctioned or initiated by the founder, I believe he simply walked out. :(
Having followed this particular crash-recovery saga unfold and being involved with web 2.0 otherwise, it would be interesting to hear a few thoughts over this: what's the responsibility of the platform provider towards their possibly very engaged community - or is there any?