This is full of gems:

"Meanwhile there is this weird idea from "Stephan Tual of Slock.it, the startup that wrote the DAO's code":

“It’s not bound by terms of law and jurisdiction,” said Mr. Tual. “It’s bound by code.”

Nothing here is ever legal advice, but I'd advise Mr. Tual to consult a lawyer, preferably one with a license from somewhere other than the Land of Ethereum. The notion that uttering the word "blockchain" somehow exempts you from national regulation is a popular one -- we have talked about it before -- but it is not widely shared by national regulators. "

Another gem:

"The DAO's investors, similarly, might now be keenly interested in whether they are in fact general partners in the DAO under local law. Because general partners tend to have unlimited liability for their partnership's misdeeds. Even if the smart contract says otherwise. "

If you don't have time to read the entire article, this is the conclusion, they don't even need to go that far back in history... as Dan pointed out with the BitShares experience:

"The blockchain-y reinvention of everything in the financial world -- money, contracts, companies -- is fascinating and impressive and, viewed from a certain angle, adorable. But sometimes it could stand to learn from what has gone before. After all, the elements of finance -- money, contracts, companies -- have already been invented. Perhaps their historical development might hold some lessons for their re-inventors."

Even before DAO collapse it was obvious that 20% threshold is too high. It was naive to deploy it without proxy. BitShares community learned that almost 2 years ago.