However, according to the DAO’s own legal contract, there is no such thing as theft and the intent is completely unimportant — the only important and relevant thing are the smart contracts themselves. Consequently, there is no real legal difference between a feature and an exploit. It is all a matte…
This is an entirely bullshit argument because legal systems simply don’t allow anyone to opt out entirely.
Even in the United States, where companies are obsessed with pushing mandatory binding arbitration into as many contracts as possible, there are limits.
Bitcoiners can shout about how they never signed the social contract and they’re really a sovereign boat so land law doesn’t apply all they want, but the real legal system doesn’t give two shits. And rightly so.