I mean, I think this really depends on how you define ethereum. I think we all agree that there hasn’t been an effective attack against the consensus mechanism in a while (we could argue the original dao was sort of a successful attack against all of eth due to the hard fork).
This is kinda where I’ve gotten to on this: consensus is pretty much safe. Smart contracting is very hard to do safely.
This is not unlike the guarantees in general computation. The metal is pretty safe. The further you get away from the metal, the more layers of abstraction you’re relying on functioning predictably.
To be clear, I’m not arguing with you and appreciate your point about formal verification of eth.
So is Eth2, see "Formal Verification of the Ethereum 2.0 Beacon Chain" by Franck Cassez, Joanne Fuller, Aditya Asgaonkar, paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.12909) and source code (https://github.com/ConsenSys/eth2.0-dafny). More efforts to formally verify Eth2 is ongoing as well, by different entities.
> Nothing is perfect but cryptographic code has to be pretty bulletproof or a lot of systems would get owned
Same with Ethereum. The chance of having a major impact with a vulnerability is even higher I'd argue, as you can easily extract currency you can trade for USD, and the entire network is inter-connected, so finding targets to exploit becomes even easier.
Point still stands that cryptography goes over a lot of peoples head, but you don't hear those people complaining that because they don't understand it, no one does.