I would argue money attack should not be seen as something negative, and rather should be encouraged in a decentralized and trust-less systems.

In DPOS stakes give influence, the reason one would want to spend money and acquire the stakes would be to have influence and have say in the system. How big can this 'say' or influence can go? How big of influence one can acquire? Should we put a cap on it and say - "if you get too much of influence and try to implement your ideas, we are out of here?" I think the answer should be NO. In fact the system/network should encourage any participants to gain as much influence as they wish without any limits. In such approach the market would decide how high of an influence one entity or group can get.

On Hive, I don't even think it is possible to get that high of stakes and influence that would give total control like deciding who all consensus witnesses would be and therefore implement attacker's ideas. If such attempts were made, I think Hive price would go so high that it would be very expensive endeavor to pursue. If such money attack were to happen, I believe most of the stakeholders would welcome it with open arms.

While I agree layer 0 plays a crucial role, problems with layer 1 were the reasons such attack was possible on steem. While trying to build a trustless decentralised system, too much trust was put into exchanges and founders, that they would not dare to attack the network. The problem was that network allowed trust outside the system with assumption that exchanges would not risk user funds. The problem was that network allowed trust to founders that they wouldn't take actions to destroy what they have created.

So now with Hive, those loopholes or bugs that layer 1 - protocol allowed are closed. We don't have to trust exchanges at all. We don't have to trust any single stakeholder.

If layer 1 - code keeps the playing feel fair and open for all to participate, all kinds of money attacks will just benefit the network, its growth and its participants. This may even make the network even more decentralized. Because money attacks if fair conditions are open to all, will encourage competition and counter money attacks.

When you have a money attack on a stake-based blockchain with a strong layer zero, the community then gets to leap off the attacker's shoulders, giving the new coin more value. It creates negative sell pressure on the attacker's chain and positive buy pressure on the new community forked chain.

Some lessons that can be learned here from steem attack is that, perhaps when creating a new chain people should keep their influence on the old chain too. Otherwise, attackers ends up achieving the goal successfully, and gain ability to steal. If you remember, the attack was not successful. It was at stalemate. If it remained as stalemate the attack would never be successful.