If your concept is still, “we will never have another contract like the DAO again which breaks the protocol” then I’ll put some flowers on your gravestone.
I think the problem is that the fundamental architecture of most blockchain protocols is unsound. If very large escrows (contracts) are permitted, some of them might be valuable enough to break the security architecture of a protocol. Can you be 100% certain that we won’t see another contentious hard fork over a large amount of funds where ownership becomes disputed? If not then what kind of legal system is a blockchain exactly? What good is a blockchain for resolving disputes if it cannot offer any guarantees that a rouge app or contract couldn’t put all contracts on the entire system in jeopardy?
I remember the olden days when Gnosis’s “ultimate oracle” actually considered this a feature and not a bug, “the people betting on the truth can make a credible thread (threat) of forking Ethereum if they loose.”
You know what that feels like if I want to build my app on Ethereum and Gnosis ruins users confidence in my app because it forked the entire ecosystem? It feels like I’m an air traffic controller and some idiot in Washington decided not to fund the government and now I can’t sleep at night because I have bills to pay.
Brilliant political strategy right up to the point where we have some major aviation disaster.
My point is that Ethereum as a blockchain architecture doesn’t do enough to prevent contentious forks. Put a max cap on how much funds contracts and escrows can hold and then I’ll feel more confident on where the protocol stands (and by implication its developers).