If this was real, why did it have to be like that? Wouldn't that actually harm the exchange itself by reducing its security reputation?
I'm not sure what you're saying and think this is just an accusation. Moreover, this is just an opinion that is not based on evidence. So this is just going to be an equally unproven debate.
Unfortunately theory alone is not enough, even though it has strong reasons, without any evidence we do not have any right to appoint a person even if he is guilty. I just can't understand, if it really happened to their insiders, why should it happen whereas to build their community and users it takes a long time, if the insiders attack on purpose, they just destroy what they made. Maybe a traitor?
Exactly, if he has an evidence and it is strong enough, it will make sense and we will believe him. But there is no evidence, so it seems like only an accussation. I really hope that this thought is wrong and exchanges are not like that. They must be responsile of anykinds of crimes or what happen in their exchanges.