It's more complicated. Their collateral ratio has dropped below the liquidation level of 150%. So at best they would only get a fraction of their collateral back (any liquidation has a discount and a 13% penalty) - fundamentally they lost because their speculative bet didn't pay off. So yes, they lost more than they should, but describing it like they lost everything because of the liquidation problem alone is misleading.
The "attack" was trivial in that there was only one bid at an auction - not enough people liquidating undercollateralized positions, but now so many people are looking at this it's never going to repeat again. It's an obvious risk only in hindsight.
The "attack" was trivial in that there was only one bid at an auction - not enough people liquidating undercollateralized positions, but now so many people are looking at this it's never going to repeat again. It's an obvious risk only in hindsight.