IMO, paying attention only to the value of the currency reacting to this news (which might have little or much impact) would be missing the bigger picture.
The news itself is a good topic of discussion.
Arguing from a neutral point of view; I’ll agree to a better consensus in decision making on the Ethereum ecosystem.
The idea of the ERP proposal at the moment to “bailout” (recovery of lost funds) Parity's multi-signature lockup, be agreed upon to a larger extent by the Ethereum community who are willing to implement or not to implement the changes. And in return whatever the concession, it becomes accepted and effective in a cored meeting, not the other way round.
Those for the argument to apply the protocol changes refer to The DAO hard fork situation (even that can be argued differently, because at the time it was majorly agreed that the threat could affect the entire Ethereum platform, which isn’t the case with the Parity multisig lockup) but fail to approach the situation in a similar way, thereby attempting to institutionalize and implement the requests to recover lost funds in Ethereum without a proper consensus system put in place.
But then again The Dao hack was handled with a hard fork to help recover lost funds, so the same can and should be applied to Parity multis lockup and other future hacks, hence the need for the ERP.
So the ERP would help institutionalize the recovering of lost funds, right? Yes!
Though the existence of the ERP itself proves that we should expect future hacks.
Another argument here could and should be, how to prevent the hacks in the first place.
How to improve the codes and smart contracts to prevent future situations.
If and when the ERP gets accepted; how to prevent the abuse of the ERP.