I think it means a lot of people are going to lose a lot more money than $1 Ether would have meant.
1. The halting problem states you can’t predict what a turing complete program will do, until you run it. This means to some degree, that you can’t predict what your “smart” contract will do, until it does it. Thus turing completeness causes security to be far, far harder than non turing completeness. This is how you lose the millions of dollars as the DAO did after it passed audits.
2. Competing implementations of consensus code in different languages greatly increases breakdown of consensus. (more millions have been lost over this, and it created a fork at about 10 percent the value of the old chain.)
3. You can buy things with bitcoin. What can you buy with ETH? If you can’t buy anything with a currency, it’s not a currency.
Thus, human resolved chain rollbacks? Check. Failed consensus between implementations? Check. Passed audit yet totally failed smart contracts? Check. No place to spend them? Check. New tokens given out all the time forever? Check.
Every dollar that goes into bad ideas is taken directly from the good ideas. Smart contracts can never be smart until oracles are solved. Oracles aren’t solved. ETH has all the technical odds and history stacked against it, however some how, the people that bought them aren’t dumping.
There’s a saying that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.