He's a Bitcoin outsider - what the heck makes you think he'd talk BTC when he says the word "revenue"?

He means no new value (currently being measured in USD) from the outside world unless it's through more investors - and at the present time he's mostly speaking truth. Mining secures the network, yes - but without some means of giving that network any sort of value it's all just meaningless bits... comparing e-penises in the form of GPUs.

My guess is you're alluding to that because mining costs you money your Bitcoins have to be worth something - no one gives a shit what Bitcoins cost to make, that's not what gives them their value.

I have never been a gambler, or traded words for indemnity.  I have earned my keep by solving specific puzzles that my clients could not.  The idea of arguing one's way into a paycheck is offensive to me.  Studying Bitcoins is well within my demeign.  I find it fascinating that the easiest way to play with them is in the form of a casino, with everyone playing the odds that they can buy low and sell high.  I may have said this before.  If noone is trading real work for Bitcoins, then they are simply chips in a stupid game.  The house always wins.  The basic principle of money markets is "screw the other guy, he's stupid."  Playing that particular game at length is a clear indication that you have nothing of value yourself to offer, as is true with all gambling.

Bear in mind that the Bitcoin system generates no revenue. All funds must come from new investors. 

Interesting question. Who do you have the service contract with? How did this contract come into existence?

I am assuming that you have a contract, quasi-contract, or similar legal source of obligations, as you are saying that you have a right.

Get your facts straight, you are talking of larceny and fraud.

Let us get the facts of the case straight so far. There was a hacking event. This is a criminal offence, no questions. The perpetrator accessed accounts (also a criminal offence), and tried to conduct a fraudulent transaction. This is where things get tricky legally. What was transferred in the eyes of the law?
- Currency? This would fall under many jurisdictions as either theft or fraud. No question about that.
- A service? Then it is larceny.
- Access to a key so that you can make a transfer of some intangible value from one ledger to another? Hacking at most.

As far as I understand, Kevin completed a transaction within the exchange, but the transaction has not really taken place (the BTCs have not been "deposited" to a wallet). If this is the case, firstly, there is no handling of stolen goods (even assuming that there is theft, which is not clear by far), so Kevin is not liable legally whatsoever.

Hehe. I am serious though. Theft has very specific connotations (warning, this discussion is about UK law, but this is typical of most systems I am familiar with). Most intangible theft, that is, money transfers, securities, etc. are classified as fraud, and that would depend on BTCs having some form of legal value. At the moment, BTCs are at best in a legal grey area. I cannot imagine that any enforcement agency would take theft (or fraud) in BTCs seriously (yet).

Hacking however is a well recognised offence, so the hacker is certainly liable regardless of Bitcoin's legal status. But Kevin would not be liable for making an exchange.