THORChain won't block the wallets linked to the $388M Bitget hack. And this creates one of the biggest debates in crypto right now: Is this decentralization protecting users — or protecting hackers? Bitget has publicly asked THORChain to block the attacker addresses and offered a 5% recovery bounty. But THORChain rejected the request, arguing that the network is permissionless and that its emergency halt mechanism is designed to protect the protocol, not selectively freeze individual addresses or swaps. The problem is that the stolen funds are not sitting still. On-chain data shows wallets linked to the attacker have already used THORChain to swap roughly 2,390 ETH worth about $6.3M into 75.2 BTC. So we have two principles colliding: Permissionless infrastructure: Anyone can use the protocol without asking for permission. Security responsibility: Once funds are publicly identified as stolen, should infrastructure providers intervene? THORChain has previously demonstrated that it can halt network activity during a security incident. But it argues that stopping the entire network to selectively freeze Bitget-related funds would be fundamentally different. And that's where the debate gets interesting. If DeFi becomes more decentralized, who decides when decentralization stops and intervention begins? Censoring stolen funds could protect victims. Refusing censorship protects the permissionless nature of the protocol. There isn't an easy answer. But one thing is clear: Crypto's biggest security debate isn't only about hackers anymore. It's about who should have the power to stop them. 👀 $RUNE $BTC $ETH