This would be compelling were it to contain accurate information. However, likening the parity incident to a "hack of ethereum" is like saying the USD is flawed because wells fargo was broken into. The same thing is true for the DAO, although it is indeed more complex in that the _resolution_ of it was handled by Ethereum proper. I think that was questionable.
Literally no one within Ethereum calls it an experiment. You have to cherry-pick from population and then ascribe it to the whole for this to be even sensical.
Essentially every technology we can think of can be rooted back to the 90s, or really any period we want to look at since that is how knowledge works. If you've got a particular, say it...rather than just this poor, lazy attempt at a sort of character assassination by employee (fairly inaccurate) appeal to oldness.
It is thoroughly _without merit_ to suggest that the analogous components of ETH and BTC have BTC being more secure. In fact, the opposite is true by any reasonable measure. Further, there are indeed things that Ethereum tries to do that add complexity, but if they come with value we shouldn't then find ourselves saying things like you do that amount to a sort of "my abacus is more secure than quickbooks online" - different purposes, solving different problems and creating different sorts of value. Even beyond that BTC holds all records for security events and $ cost of them, coin-loss amounts of of them, and so on.