While I have my own opinions about the attacker's intent, and how it might have changed in response to developments, I agree that the attributions in this artic

While I have my own opinions about the attacker's intent, and how it might have changed in response to developments, I agree that the attributions in this article are speculative. They are also as much about the author's attitudes as they are about the attacker. The return to the status quo ante is the best possible outcome, and the payment to the attacker under the guise of a reward is smart, both to encourage the completion of the restitution and to establish a pattern of response which may be desirable to repeat in the future - for example, we can readily imagine a situation where someone pulls off something like this, and remains anonymous, but then balks at the risk of touching the loot: this reward would give that person some encouragement to perform a restoration. One thing which can be said with some objectivity is that no-one who holds to the dogma that "the code is the contract" has any grounds to complain about the original act, regardless of whether the affected accounts were restored. This was a wake-up call, and we will see whether the response amounts to anything more than hitting the snooze button.