THORChain vs. NEAR debate exposes limits of crypto idealism
A fierce debate has erupted over whether decentralized, permissionless protocols should intervene when stolen crypto passes through their infrastructure.
After the $387.7 million Bitget hack on Sept. 24, roughly $387.5 million of stolen funds began moving across chains, with some routed through THORChain. Bitget CEO Gracy Chen publicly urged THORChain to block addresses linked to the attackers, but the protocol refused.
THORChain developers argue that a truly permissionless protocol cannot selectively block stolen funds because doing so would undermine its neutrality. The network previously allowed hackers to move about $1.2 billion stolen from Bybit through the protocol.
NEAR Intents took a different approach. Its automated SHIELD security system detected more than $50 million in attempted Bitget-related flows and stopped about $503,000, while another $166,000 passed through. NEAR says permissionless infrastructure does not necessarily mean every application must process every transaction.
The dispute highlights two competing approaches to DeFi: credible neutrality and censorship resistance on one side, versus automated security controls and intervention against known illicit flows on the other. The debate is increasingly important as cross-chain infrastructure handles larger amounts of capital.
A fierce debate has erupted over whether decentralized, permissionless protocols should intervene when stolen crypto passes through their infrastructure.
After the $387.7 million Bitget hack on Sept. 24, roughly $387.5 million of stolen funds began moving across chains, with some routed through THORChain. Bitget CEO Gracy Chen publicly urged THORChain to block addresses linked to the attackers, but the protocol refused.
THORChain developers argue that a truly permissionless protocol cannot selectively block stolen funds because doing so would undermine its neutrality. The network previously allowed hackers to move about $1.2 billion stolen from Bybit through the protocol.
NEAR Intents took a different approach. Its automated SHIELD security system detected more than $50 million in attempted Bitget-related flows and stopped about $503,000, while another $166,000 passed through. NEAR says permissionless infrastructure does not necessarily mean every application must process every transaction.
The dispute highlights two competing approaches to DeFi: credible neutrality and censorship resistance on one side, versus automated security controls and intervention against known illicit flows on the other. The debate is increasingly important as cross-chain infrastructure handles larger amounts of capital.