It was definitely fraud. Either it was a contract, in which case "taking $50 million without anyone's consent" doesn't pass the officious bystander test. Otherw

It was definitely fraud. Either it was a contract, in which case "taking $50 million without anyone's consent" doesn't pass the officious bystander test. Otherwise it wasn't a contract, so the default is still fraud (though in that case, the DAO would be the thing being defrauded rather than the investors).