After hackers were exposed, a 48-hour ultimatum—$3.8 million was returned in full without missing a penny—NEAR Intents, was this move more like law enforcement than some so-called decentralized cross-chain bridges? The dispute between THORChain and NEAR sparked by the stolen $387.7 million at Bitget boils down to one key line:，坚持无需许可、不干预, even if you have the ability to block it, you don’t. NEAR chose another route: first identify the individuals, then set a deadline—the money came back. I don’t think this is a victory of idealism; it feels more like a negotiation: on-chain evidence is solid, the hacker did the math and realized they couldn’t get away, so refunding was the lowest-cost option. I can understand the logic THORChain follows, but when $380 million and $3.8 million are on the table, who exactly bears the cost of non-interference? Either way, the person getting blamed is never the one who writes the code. $NEAR