This is true. Smart contract risk was advertised, investment risk is advertised. Everyone knows when they lock up their funds in a smart contract that there is risk involved. The people who trusted bZx with their stake agreed to tie their fate (and funds) with the organization. Users who merely adopted and used the services once or twice over the course of years were tricked into leaving permanent permissions with the protocol. Even on BSC the permission tab is new and in beta - coming way later than the users who have been leaving ‘unlimited’ permissions within the protocol - permissions which were not made clear to anyone. These people are the victims of bZx; victims of security neglect and of permissions deception. The others are mere losing investors.
It is quite useless to divide the groups though, and it won’t get anyone anywhere. Sorting out compensation based upon token rather than protocol relationship is more meaningful. Debt tokens can respond to these - a debt token pointing to that which was lost - pinning it to a stablecoin however won’t work. It needs to be nuanced - ones for stable and ones for others like BTC and ETH.
Again, being robbed 1 BTC in November, calculating that worth in USDC, and then being given out the value of 1 BTC in USDC a time later could amount to something way off of the loss. I have always calculated my crypto earnings and gains in BTC. USDT/USDC/BUSD/DAI are meaningless.