This is where decentralisation gets complicated. THORChain has a strong argument that a neutral protocol should not decide which addresses can transact.
Once that door opens, who decides what gets blocked, whether it is $BTC, $ETH, or another asset, and what prevents that power from being abused?
But the opposite argument is also valid. If validators can halt the protocol during an exploit, it is reasonable to ask why they can not respond when clearly identified stolen funds are being moved through it and converted into assets like BTC.
The answer needs to be more than “decentralisation.” There should be clear rules, transparency, and accountability.
Otherwise, neutrality can either become censorship in disguise or an excuse for avoiding responsibility.
#Macro Insights#
Once that door opens, who decides what gets blocked, whether it is $BTC, $ETH, or another asset, and what prevents that power from being abused?
But the opposite argument is also valid. If validators can halt the protocol during an exploit, it is reasonable to ask why they can not respond when clearly identified stolen funds are being moved through it and converted into assets like BTC.
The answer needs to be more than “decentralisation.” There should be clear rules, transparency, and accountability.
Otherwise, neutrality can either become censorship in disguise or an excuse for avoiding responsibility.
#Macro Insights#
