1) There are alternatives - metaexchange, yunbi etc which will capture the volume. Thats how it works, something else will fill the void.
They'll capture the subset of BTER users who actively care about Bitshares i.e. us i.e. a minority.
The majority of other BTER users will move to other exchanges that don't have Bitshares and Bitassets listed and will completely forget about Bitshares. Game over.
2) Bter doesn't have any USD licenses. They operate CNY but it seems that is not much of an issue. Already we have tradebts operating smoothly.
That's not new. The question isn't what additional capabilities BTER should be getting to be even more useful as an on/off-ramp but whether in its current state it is a valuable on/off-ramp and what effect losing it will have on Bitshares. The question is whether the price to pay to acquire BTER before it fails is higher than the fall out of letting BTER fail.
3) I have been maintaining that BTS might fail, but certainly won't be due to this Bter hack.
BTS will fail because it is too conservative and doesn't dare to do anything bold.
It's not going to go belly up because BTER fail: instead it will slowly keep losing momentum until the delegates pay are so ridiculous that developers start giving up their slots and move on. Then it will die.
Instead of trying this kind of solution, use this as an opportunity to get users to the DeX.
I fail to see how letting one of the main bridge between Bitshares and the world collapse is an opportunity to get users onto Bitshares. I agree that this will put another nail in the coffin of centralized exchanges so users out there will start looking around for decentralized exchanges that are actually accessible from the real world and flock to NXT, SuperNet, Medicis and Stellar, Counterparty and Ripple.
Acquiring BTER is bold. It's a bet. It's wild. But if we can't get around thinking of doing things like that, Bitshares won't even be a side noted in history books covering the crypto era.