That argument is pure cope and your response misses the fundamental point entirely. You're focusing on the technical failure ("bad opsec," "custody failure") to ignore the political failure that game theory can't fix. The uneven playing field. The point isn't that criminals had weak security....the point is that the government has the power to spend massive resources to track, prosecute, and ultimately seize $14 billion in an asset designed to be unconfiscatable. This act of force fundamentally changes the game by proving the state doesn't need to abide by market rules or "vested interest" logic, it can use its legal and physical might to contain or remove any asset that threatens its control, showing that the promise of hard money is constantly vulnerable to a powerful, centralized actor.