ETH

File: whitehat.png (4KB, 272x185px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 272x185px

No FUD, just a calm analysis of the options.

Regarding the ETH-hack, we have 4 options:
a) the whitehat told them that there is a possibility to hack and they ignored him
b) the whitehat told them that there is a possibility to hack and they could not fix it in time
c) he did not told them, as he feared that the hack is so easy that anyone could do it any second now and he needed to move fast
d) he did not told them, as is not a whitehat and just wants to create confusion

Option a) is quite possible, as many companies take warnings from whitehats not serious. Very bad, as the trust in ETH will drop considerably.
Option b) is also not impossible, concerning that it might take a while to fix it. However in this case they should take action themself and/or communicate right after it to prevent further damage to the image of ETH - not let the whitehat act on his own. Also very bad, as it indicates not enough know-how on the team to deal with serious events like that.
Option c) sounds probable, but is a strange step to take for a whitehat. Implications are somewhat bad but not as bad as a) and b), because if only points to a serious mistake in the code, not an inherent wrongdoing of the devs itself. Can be solved by transparency and communication. I doubt that Vitalic is mature enough for this, when I look at his style of tweeting...
Option d) would be the worst case. Lost trust, lost coins, lost everything. $30-$40 incoming, forget the flippening, ETH will be just another coin in the foreseeable future.

Either way or another - on top of being in the middle of the correction, ETH will face another bear.