This is less about defending hackers and more about where decentralization $ETH draws the line. THORChain says it is permissionless and that its emergency controls are designed to protect the protocol, not selectively freeze individual addresses. But the criticism is understandable: CoinDesk reports that a wallet linked to the Bitget attacker moved about $6.3M through THORChain even after Bitget publicly identified the addresses and requested that they be blocked. So the real debate is: Should a decentralized protocol remain neutral even when funds are publicly identified as stolen, or should it intervene to prevent further movement? For crypto, that is a serious question because permissionless access protects users from censorship, but it can also be exploited by criminals. THORChain's decision doesn't necessarily mean it supports the hacker. It means it is prioritizing its stated permissionless design over selective censorship. Please, share your thoughts. #Macro Insights# #BTC Price Analysis#