If he had left BitUSD with no BSIP42, there will be no BlackSwan on BitUSD
To be fair, I think that with such a big downtrend a black swan on bitUSD might have happened even without BSIP-42.
Still, I think it is now proven that BSIP-42 increases the likelyhood of a black swan, due to margin calls not being eaten.
(I'm well aware that BSIP-42 can completely prevent a black swan if the witnesses keep the feed price "fake enough". This is cheating though, because it only hides the undercollaterlization from the blockchain. It will break the peg, and thus defeat the purpose of BSIP-42.)
1. A peg can stand only if debts (at least the one with least collateral ratio) are fully backed. BSIP42 doesn't change this fact. That said, BSIP42 does have a limited effective range. GS doesn't lead to a peg either.
2. BSIP42 only takes effect when borrowing is enabled. That said, avoiding GS by feeding a fake price makes it easier for bitAssets to peg again when the market bounced up or the trend changed.
3. We're well aware that risks will accumulate if margin calls not being eaten. Although admittedly BSIP42 helped the risk accumulation to an extent, I still believe it's not fully due to BSIP42. Before BSIP42, E.G. on bitcrab's image, bitUSD has a more than 15% premium, to eat the margins which are hanging at -10% you still have to pay quite a bit more than market price.
BSIP42 can be tweaked to always let margins to be able to be eaten E.G. increasing MSSR at the same time when adjusting up feed price, the thing is, in a bear market, not that many bitcrabs who will eat margin calls at the cost of themselves. However, it seems many people just want to do nothing, rather than to improve something that doesn't work very well.
4. it's always easier to blame someone else. By doing nothing you won't do anything wrong, but you won't go forward either.