You are taking the concept of "code as law" as literally code being the law and assuming this means it is static and unchangeable, which is wrong. What you're missing is that the code IS changeable. When it comes Ethereum and the DAOsaster, the community will decide whether the code should be changed or not (whether ETH will be returned or not), and then that will be law.

I highly suggest reading "Code: And Other Laws Of Cyberspace". It's really a must if you're into cryptocurrency.(especially when spewing out the term "code is law" all the time..)

Here's an excerpt which I think you'll find interesting. It's a long read, but it will show what this book is about (and what I think we are all really arguing about):

' It was a very ordinary dispute, this argument between Martha Jones and her neighbors. It was the sort of dispute that people have had since the start of neighborhoods. It didn’t begin in anger. It began with a misunderstanding. In this world, misunderstandings like this are far too common. Martha thought about that as she wondered whether she should stay; there were other places she could go. Leaving would mean abandoning what she had built, but frustrations like this were beginning to get to her. Maybe ,she thought, it was time to move on. The argument was about borders—about where her land stopped. It seemed like a simple idea, one you would have thought the powers-that-be would have worked out many years before. But here they were, her neighbor Dank and she, still fighting about borders. Or rather, about something fuzzy at the borders— about something of Martha’s that spilled over into the land of others.

This was the fight, and it all related to what Martha did. Martha grew flowers. Not just any flowers, but flowers with an odd sort of power. They were beautiful flowers, and their scent entranced. But, however beautiful, these flowers were also poisonous. This was Martha’s weird idea: to make flowers of extraordinary beauty which, if touched, would kill. Strange no doubt, but no one said that Martha wasn’t strange. She was unusual, as was this neighborhood. But sadly, disputes like this were not.

The start of the argument was predictable enough.Martha’s neighbor, Dank, had a dog. Dank’s dog died. The dog died because it had eaten a petal from one of Martha’s flowers. A beautiful petal, and now a dead dog. Dank had his own ideas about these flowers, and about this neighbor, and he expressed those ideas—perhaps with a bit too much anger, or perhaps with anger appropriate to the situation.

“There is no reason to grow deadly flowers,” Dank yelled across the fence. “There’s no reason to get so upset about a few dead dogs,”Martha replied. “A dog can always be replaced. And anyway, why have a dog that suffers when dying? Get yourself a pain-free-death dog, and my petals will cause no harm.” I came into the argument at about this time. Iwas walking by, in the way one walks in this space. (At first I had teleported to get near, but we needn’t complicate the story with jargon. Let’s just say I was walking.) I saw the two neighbors becoming increasingly angry with each other. I had heard about the disputed flowers—about how their petals carried poison.It seemed to me a simple problem to solve, but I guess it’s simple only if you understand how problems like this are created.

Dank and Martha were angry because in a sense they were stuck. Both had built a life in the neighborhood; they had invested many hours there. But both were coming to understand its limits. This is a common condition: We all build our lives in places with limits.We are all disappointed at times.What was different about Dank and Martha? One difference was the nature of the space, or context, where their argument was happening.

This was not “real space” but virtual space. It was part of what I call “cyberspace.” The environment was a “massively multiple online game” (“MMOG”), and MMOG space is quite different from the space we call real. Real space is the place where you are right now: your office, your den, maybe by a pool.It’s a world defined by both laws that are man-made and others that are not. “Limited liability” for corporations is a man-made law. It means that the directors of a corporation (usually) cannot be held personally liable for the sins of the company. Limited life for humans is not a man-made law: That we all will die is not the result of a decision that Congress made.In real space, our lives are subject to both sorts of law, though in principle we could change one sort. '