Hm, Factom going down should not be related to DAO and Ether. It s not related in any way at all.
This must be something else.
Now almost all the coins on the market are having problems and are in the red, it is a normal reaction to yesterday's events, burglary and theft of $60 million. Due to yesterday's events the credibility of the smart contracts and all that is connected with them are now dropped, and dropped credibility of the entire crypto market. It always has been, can remember as soon as the markets reacted when there were problems with the theft Bitcoins (Mt.Gox and others) on the exchanges. Now we need 27 days while all the markets normalize, unless V. Buterin and his team will be able to make the right decision.
I don't believe there is a right decision. It seems as if there are only choices between bad and worse and it also seems as if they are willing to risk Ethereums credibility to get the money back (a rollback is on the table).
But even if they would find a most elegant/perfect solution to not hurt Ethereums credibility and to get the money back: All those ETH's will reach the market in a short period of time. And that will also be anticipated. I don't see a positive scenario for Ethereum (and the price) in mid-term.
Other projects will benefit in my opinion. That may seem cold but that's the "game". Besides the learning effect (which can also help Ethereum in longterm) a lot of money which would be focused on Ethereum won't go into Ethereum the next time but find it's way into other projects.
I don't believe that this disaster will have much impact on others besides the panic that was in the market yesterday. It's not a Factom-problem or a *whateverprojectsname*-problem.
This is worth reading about Ethereum and DAO:
Thoughts on The DAO Hack
(...)
Is Ethereum/Solidity Suitable for Secure Smart Contracts?
It's clear that writing a robust, secure smart contract requires extreme amounts of diligence. It's more similar to writing code for a nuclear power reactor, than to writing loose web code.
Yet the current Solidity language and underlying EVM seems designed more for the latter. Some misfeatures are:
A good language for writing state machines would ensure that there are no states from which it is impossible to recover.
A good language for writing state machines would make it painfully clear when state transitions can and cannot happen.
A good language for maintaining state machines would provide features for upgrading the security of a live contract.
A good language for writing secure code would make it clear that there are no implicit actions, that code executes plainly, as read.
The current language does not fulfill any of these commandments, and in fact, the last one, involving implicit recursive calls, is what did The Dao in.
The SlockIt team even had the designer and implementor of Solidity perform a review of their code. If he cannot get something like The DAO to be secure, no one can.
A re-think seems called for.
(...)
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/17/thoughts-on-the-dao-hack/ (...)
The only reason the proposal exists at all is because the Ethereum developers have personally invested in the DAO, multiple posters have argued.
The conflict threatens to bring down the credibility of the entire currency. Not only was it possible to hack the system and move millions of dollars worth out of one of the currency's main backers raising questions of its technical competence but the developers have proposed intervening potentially for their own financial gain in the inner workings of the entire system raising political questions over how it is run.
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/17/digital_currency_ethereum/