Either I don’t see how this is or was a problem, or I don’t get it in full detail (not a crypto guy, I only follow the news). A crypto subproject - that explicitly states what can be done with its contracts carte blanche style on minimal consensus - does it. So what? It’s on a high risk side by design, and unless they tried to hide this fact, it’s okay. Read the damn contract as you usually do, then proceed with your high risk based business. It is not even a “crypto” issue, and no, not every piece of “crypto” has to be fooish, barish and bazzing just like not every piece of open source has to be GPLv3. This is an excellent example that people may vote on a blockchain to have liquid agreements rather than having “code is right even if everyone’s screwed” attitude. The situation may be bad or surprising for someone, but the system worked as planned.