🚨 A major exchange was stolen of $387.5 million, yet a certain public chain refuses to freeze the stolen funds—whose fault is it to take the blame?
Group: 点击进入玖玖的粉丝群
📊 After a top exchange was hacked, the CEO publicly asked the cross-chain protocol THORChain to refuse to process transfers from the hacker addresses. THORChain directly rejected the request, with a tough reason: just like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain, we are a decentralized, permissionless network.
🔥 Its underlying retort was that what responsibility should Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain take when handling known stolen funds? With that said, old accounts were dug up: THORChain had previously been used to exchange about $1.2 billion, with the funds linked to another major exchange hack in 2025; and even before the incident, it had abandoned the administrator private keys—in other words, at the architecture level, it effectively blocks the possibility of manually blacklisting a specific address.
📌 Even more interesting: another project took the exact opposite approach. NEAR Intents’ SHIELD system identified the involved addresses, intercepted cross-chain transfers totaling over $50 million, froze about $503,000, and only about $166,000 slipped through before the restriction took effect. It also rejected the 5%追回賞金 offered by the exchange.
💡 The real disagreement isn’t about whether to pursue the stolen funds, but whether decentralized networks should retain the ability to “selectively freeze.” Being able to stop it but not doing so, versus not being able to stop it at all—these are two totally different things in the eyes of regulators and users.
⚠️ A bucket of cold water: this isn’t a back-and-forth argument about who’s right or wrong—it’s a real trade-off. The stronger the control, the more likely you are to draw scrutiny from regulators, users, and courts, and to be required to use the same methods in other cases. That “anti-censorship” branding could also be called into question.
👀 One side says anti-censorship is a bottom line; protocols shouldn’t act as the police. The other side says if you can stop it, you should—and you shouldn’t let stolen funds go. Do you think a decentralized protocol should cooperate in freezing stolen funds? Vote in the comments section below👇
Click the avatar to watch the livestream + join the Jiujiu chat group to get daily strategies 🚀
#DeFi #THORChain #cross-chain
Group: 点击进入玖玖的粉丝群
📊 After a top exchange was hacked, the CEO publicly asked the cross-chain protocol THORChain to refuse to process transfers from the hacker addresses. THORChain directly rejected the request, with a tough reason: just like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain, we are a decentralized, permissionless network.
🔥 Its underlying retort was that what responsibility should Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain take when handling known stolen funds? With that said, old accounts were dug up: THORChain had previously been used to exchange about $1.2 billion, with the funds linked to another major exchange hack in 2025; and even before the incident, it had abandoned the administrator private keys—in other words, at the architecture level, it effectively blocks the possibility of manually blacklisting a specific address.
📌 Even more interesting: another project took the exact opposite approach. NEAR Intents’ SHIELD system identified the involved addresses, intercepted cross-chain transfers totaling over $50 million, froze about $503,000, and only about $166,000 slipped through before the restriction took effect. It also rejected the 5%追回賞金 offered by the exchange.
💡 The real disagreement isn’t about whether to pursue the stolen funds, but whether decentralized networks should retain the ability to “selectively freeze.” Being able to stop it but not doing so, versus not being able to stop it at all—these are two totally different things in the eyes of regulators and users.
⚠️ A bucket of cold water: this isn’t a back-and-forth argument about who’s right or wrong—it’s a real trade-off. The stronger the control, the more likely you are to draw scrutiny from regulators, users, and courts, and to be required to use the same methods in other cases. That “anti-censorship” branding could also be called into question.
👀 One side says anti-censorship is a bottom line; protocols shouldn’t act as the police. The other side says if you can stop it, you should—and you shouldn’t let stolen funds go. Do you think a decentralized protocol should cooperate in freezing stolen funds? Vote in the comments section below👇
Click the avatar to watch the livestream + join the Jiujiu chat group to get daily strategies 🚀
#DeFi #THORChain #cross-chain
