Perhaps you can argue that the DAO specifically allowed this to happen (thus it is not theft). It's not just that it allowed this to happen. It's that the whol

Perhaps you can argue that the DAO specifically allowed this to happen (thus it is not theft). It's not just that it allowed this to happen. It's that the whole point of the thing -- the idea that was supposed to herald a world-changing revolution in which "dumb" contracts and their associated baggage of lawyers, courts and governments would become permanently obsolete -- was that it was presented explicitly as saying "if a human interpretation of the human-language description of the contract disagrees with the executed instructions of the code implementing the contract, the code wins, period". Along with a caveat, of course, about how you better be damn sure about your code, because if you screw it up and lose money, it's your fault for writing bad code and you deserve to lose your money. So now they're trying to walk that back and say that maybe they should have a mechanism for dealing with this contract that had a bug that lost them a bunch of money. Which undermines the entire selling point of the system.