As soon as The DAO attack happened, I've sold all my DAO tokens cheap.
Why did I do it? Because all of us had an explicit agreement, stated many times: transactions are immutable and code is law.
So it makes sense: if code is law, attacker will get as much money from the DAO as he wants, which renders DAO tokens worthless.
We've had this declared as a primary feature of Ethereum, not to mention express wording in the The DAO terms, hadn't we 
Some of you, who, for some reason, hesitated to sell at a discount, or had hope for some solution to revert the attack, have kept your DAO tokens, and subsequently sold Ether from The DAO at a much higher price, were motivated to support the hard fork.
You, who explicitly agreed on The DAO terms you've thoroughly read before investing, https://daohub.org/explainer.html, including
- There is a risk that, as an open source project, any contributor to The DAO’s software could introduce weaknesses or bugs into the DAO software, causing the loss of DAO tokens or ETH in one or more or even all of the DAO Token Holder’s accounts,
and - Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation,
have breached the agreement, supported the hard fork and managed to benefit from my losses.
Well, good for you - when money talks, you don't really care about your agreements, principles, or the fact that you’re taking advantage of a contract violation to serve yourselves.
Yep, it’s a dog eat dog world, isn’t it? Good thing is that now you know the price of your word - your word can be sold at the price of your investment in The DAO, you know the exact amount.
But there are other people taking advantage of my losses and your decision to go pro-fork. Their financial gains from this are probably far greater than yours.
The ones who bought a large amount of The DAO tokens at a huge discount - a reckless risky investment unless the buyers are the ones who know and control something the sellers don’t.
The ones who had a much greater access to information on how the attack could and will be handled (remember the closed chats with exchanges and “we will discuss internally and get back to the community” stuff?) and whether the hard fork is likely.
The ones who had at their disposal a wider range of public address channels and a far greater clout in the “community” than any middle-of-the-road DAO token holder, causing you to go pro-fork with financial motivation and reputational pressure.
The ones who are motivated to throw their resources at supporting the hard fork to rescue a large holding of the DAO which they’ve refused to disclose, despite being directly questioned about it many times, although such disclosure would a be a logical part of due diligence for any project soliciting public investments.
The ones who could make the most profits, taking advantage of both those who stayed true to the principles of Ethereum and terms of The DAO, and those who abandoned and perverted them, being financially motivated to breach the terms they’ve accepted.
So who was in the best possible position to make profits out of the whole The DAO debacle?
Vitalik Buterin, Gavin Wood, Alex Van de Sande, Emin Gün Sirer, Vlad Zamfir,
Shermin Voshmgir, Griff Green, Timon Rapp, Gian Bochsler, Stephan Tual, Griff Green, Simon and Christoph Jentzsch,
you are closely associated with The DAO and the hard fork in one capacity or the other.
Some of you had their reputation used extensively to leverage The DAO marketing campaign.
Some of you used their reputation extensively to push the hard fork, whether by publicly addressing the wider community, or by privately targeting much narrower circles - exchanges, mining pools, etc.
Some of you are even using whatever remains of their reputation to bash on the original, unaltered, chain.
You are also some of the brighter people in the Ethereum community (except for Stephan Tual and Griff Green, apparently).
Given that, it shouldn’t be hard for you to answer the simple question: who had the motivation, the means, and moral flexibility to push the fork and take profits from it?
I don’t really expect an answer from some of you for reasons which seem obvious.
Others, however, could clarify their stance on the aforesaid - either by answering, or by ignoring the question.