What does that matter if the terms are changed?? The attacker exploited a contract that will be given new terms by the vast majority of the parties involved, wh

What does that matter if the terms are changed?? The attacker exploited a contract that will be given new terms by the vast majority of the parties involved, which prevents his exploit. You could possibly claim that the contract requires 100% of all parties involved to amend, but I don't think a contract with such a larger number of parties has ever been dealt with by any legal system. Add to that, that the attacker almost certainly committed computer fraud, and the attacker seems to have little ground to stand on. Contracts (or loopholes in them) don't give you the right to break other laws.