I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this.
First, there is no existential threat. At least not to Bitcoin. If Ethereum ends up voting to NOT invalidate the event (remember - it was clearly stated that the only binding terms were the code, which makes the 'heist' actually a legitimate action), then it may yet recover. If they do invalidate the recent event, nobody will ever trust again that it is decentralized.
More importantly, Bitcoin already has a policy. You make a stupid investment, it's on you. Don't expect the system to bail out your ignorant ass.
I didn't say it was an existential thread to bitcoin. That's silly. It was an existential threat to the entity in question, The DAO. Given that the head of Slock.it is now saying it's dead regardless of what happens, I'd say that's pretty existential.
If they engage a hard fork it will require widespread consensus among the miners involved to pull it off. There is no contradiction between decentralization and getting something done. I think the muddled point you are trying to make is that if they bail out The DAO investors, people will expect it again in the future. That risk exists both in a mob rule and a dictatorship. That, not decentralization or centralization, is the real issue at hand.
As long as they can do it with a soft fork it will be OK.
Same thing for deleting satoshi's coins, if theymos and mining pools can do it with a soft fork (i.e. not changing the codes of Bitcoin, which is immutable.), than is OK.
I disagree. If an action is immoral, it doesn't matter whether it is done with a soft fork or a hard fork. That's like saying that murder with a knife is different from murder with a gun.
I have to humbely disagree. The murderer using a knife is not forced to upgrade to a gun. It is backwards compatable.
Let he who is without sin (the soft forker), cast the first stone.
there was entirely too much investment into something so unproven, if they had righteous intentions they would have capped the funding at something reasonable (could have still been a ground breaking amount). But you are right, it is quite funny how things come to pass. 
