The saddest thing in the whole MtGox failure (in case you haven't heard: it has disappeared, along with over $400 million 'worth' of Bitcoin it was holding) is not the loss of value (many people will be able to write this off against future taxable income) but that people involved with Bitcoin are blaming MtGox rather than looking at the system that led to the inevitable.
Sadly, this charge is led by the owners of other Bitcoin exchanges, who have a vested interest in ensuring that people do not pay attention to the shocking lack of regulatory controls, holding gaurantees or deposit insurance around Bitcoin and decide that Bitcoin is, indeed, an unsecured investment whose major attributes are volatility, speculation and utility as a currency exchange pivot point for markets where such exchanges are difficult. (Someone should write something about that last point if they haven't already, as it is a potential source of longevity for Bitcoin, though one that is independent of, and therefore will do nothing for, the stability of its value.)
The other exchanges are basically saying, "Bitcoin is awesome, but MtGox was the devil! But you can trust us, even though nothing has actually changed. We'll work together to do better than those evil MtGox people, promise! "
They are probably going to be successful in convincing many people because:
a) human beings have a very unfortunate tendency to look at failure within the context of the single incident rather than the system within which the failure occurs.
b) people have invested both money and belief into the Bitcoin system, so well-understood psychological weaknesses endemic to the human mind such as effort justification spring into play
A reasonable mind would conclude that if the system encourages failure, creates failure and/or does little/nothing to prevent predictable failure (all of which is true of the current Bitcoin trading system), then focusing on the incident but keeping the system as-is is utterly daft. Yet this is what people in general tend to do, and it is very much what we're seeing in the Mt Gox situation.
The same people who support that kind of statement probably would find the idea of a traditional market regulator (e.g. the SEC in the USA) being run by the same publicly traded companies they are supposed to be regulating to be "wrong", yet even that would be better than what the exchanges have thus far proposed.
Good luck to all the True Believers on bringing a currency to bear in which a private company operating with no transparency, check or balance can simply disappear (not devalue: disappear) significant amount of the currency.