In the same batch of stolen funds, the actions of two stablecoin issuers differed by seven hours.⏱️
On-chain data shows that after the incident, one of them quickly froze the stablecoins in the hacker’s address, while the other lagged by about seven hours before catching up. The amounts frozen on both sides also weren’t equal—the one that moved first froze a larger figure.
The fact that the stablecoins can be frozen reveals one side of this system that people overlooked.
It looks like borderless cash, but in reality, every transaction is tied to a company’s ledger. When needed, it can be written off with a single entry. This was already spelled out in the terms—just that, in normal times, nobody reads them.
The real disagreement comes down to execution speed. Behind those seven hours are differences in the two issuers’ risk preferences, as well as how much each of them cares about the same issue.
For users, this raises a very practical problem.
When money is stolen, the chance of recovery isn’t the same depending on which side the funds ended up on. There’s no unified standard among issuers—each one relies on its own judgment.
The on-chain data makes it possible to see the freeze timestamps, which in itself indicates that the process is observable. Who acted first, and who was one step slower—both are recorded and also leave a lasting impression.
Next time something goes wrong, will the one that moved faster this time also be the fastest again? It’s worth keeping in mind.📊
On-chain data shows that after the incident, one of them quickly froze the stablecoins in the hacker’s address, while the other lagged by about seven hours before catching up. The amounts frozen on both sides also weren’t equal—the one that moved first froze a larger figure.
The fact that the stablecoins can be frozen reveals one side of this system that people overlooked.
It looks like borderless cash, but in reality, every transaction is tied to a company’s ledger. When needed, it can be written off with a single entry. This was already spelled out in the terms—just that, in normal times, nobody reads them.
The real disagreement comes down to execution speed. Behind those seven hours are differences in the two issuers’ risk preferences, as well as how much each of them cares about the same issue.
For users, this raises a very practical problem.
When money is stolen, the chance of recovery isn’t the same depending on which side the funds ended up on. There’s no unified standard among issuers—each one relies on its own judgment.
The on-chain data makes it possible to see the freeze timestamps, which in itself indicates that the process is observable. Who acted first, and who was one step slower—both are recorded and also leave a lasting impression.
Next time something goes wrong, will the one that moved faster this time also be the fastest again? It’s worth keeping in mind.📊