Why are people even voting for lenders ? If the hacked account is asking for a loan,it is completely the owner's fault that due to improper precautions taken the hacker managed to hack the account.Not only lending but also trading or anything general that happens with the hacked account is solely owners fault.
So you're saying the owner of the hacked account should repay the loan in full?
Here's my question for you: do you think that the fault doesn't lie with the lender when they allow the loan without asking for a signed message or proof that the account-holder is the true owner?
Obviously not, so then the fault should lie with the lender. This is where it goes into a case-by-case basis because primarily I would expect that the account-holder would pay at least a significant amount of the funds but the lender shouldn't get a free pass, either.
This leads into the problem where people may claim to be hacked but rather simply defaulting on a loan and then paying back either nothing or an amount less than what they received.
I'm saying that at least for lower-status accounts, all of the blame is on the lender. They took the risk, knowing full well that the loan could be defaulted. Things are a bit more blurred when you get into BiPolar territory.