Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, the hard fork for TheDAO did not sacrifice our principles. > No it wasn't a centralized bailout. > Yes, there were SOME shady things that went down, but all very minor. It was a very confusing time for all. > Yes, the website says "unstoppable uncensorable contracts" and we stopped one. Congratulations. Let me direct you to Ethereum Classic. You can't complain about a hard fork when you have a community that up…
"What's to prevent a similar situation in the future and why should anyone believe that to hold?" Ask yourself if this was a centralized hard fork ordered by up high, or as users we chose to opt in to this change. Clearly we opted in, because Ethereum Classic exists for those who so wish. Therefore, the Ethereum Foundation did not "force" me to do anything that I didn't agree to. Yes in my example Musk might have got…
There's a huge difference between a blockchain that just started out, effectively in its beta release and learning the ropes, doing a hard fork under extraordinary circumstances, and a mature blockchain doing a hard fork to reverse any old major Dapp hack.
If Ethereum does hard forks to reverse hacks of third party applications at a mature phase of its life, I think its chances of succeeding and becoming the main platform for global asset management will diminish significantly. On the contrary, if Ethereum stays true to its principles, and becomes reliably immutable, even in the face of major hacks, I believe there is very little that can stop it from becoming the defacto protocol for global commerce. So I think being overly pragmatic is actually dangerous. Idealism is what sets principles, and principles are what give a platform credibility.
Remember, a hack of a third party application, no matter how major, cannot seriously harm Ethereum. A contentious hard fork and a discrediting of its principles can.