The real lesson is that there is a need for better safety mechanisms. I'm sure there were engineers back in the day who opposed seat belts because it encouraged reckless driving, and amateurs should learn from their disabling injuries how stupid they were. Or maybe just unlucky?

The claim that the lesson is "we have to be perfect, and only support prefect people who design perfect smart contracts" borders on lunacy. There is no such thing as perfection. The U.S. political system was designed with the recognition that men are not angels (Federalist number 5? 10? anyone?). Every engineering project considers what could go wrong. And the more significant the consequences are, the greater attention to anticipating and preparing for what can go wrong.

Want to punish yourselves for what went wrong? Propose a mandatory tax on the millions you claw back to devote to research of cry to safety. 10% for safety will teach a better lesson, and be productive rather than enrich a crook.