While we'd rather the incident hadn't happened, such events do show off the strength of the ecosystem. I think people use these incidents to gauge the degree of antifragility within a system. They are demonstrations of its ability to grow stronger from volatility. Good communications can highlight this aspect of the system. 

The engagement and interest you mention is, IMO, the secret sauce of any such system. So many projects out there think that the solution to all of their problems are algorithmic-first, and if they can just design the right algorithms, that will solve all of their problems when in reality *networks of people* solve problems. The most elegantly designed "on-chain governance" will crumble if no one uses the software and likely will collapse when they do use it because then it will be forced to interact with unpredictable and irrational (not in a bad way) human actors. The only way to develop the right algorithms, build the right software, and establish functional governance mechanisms, is to build a network of engaged and interested people who are constantly kicking the tires, providing feedback, and influencing change in a positive direction. We don't just have that, the Steem community is years ahead of the competition. People often make the mistake of thinking that Steem should be defined as what it has been in the past, when the real power of Steem is what we will work together to make it in the future.