Why is THORChain’s decentralization being questioned after the Bitget hack?
After the Bitget hack, wallets linked to the attacker moved some stolen assets through THORChain and converted them into Bitcoin.
Bitget asked THORChain to block those addresses.
THORChain refused, saying it is a permissionless protocol and does not blacklist users.
This created a bigger debate about what decentralization actually means.
THORChain uses validator-controlled vaults. Validators work together to approve transactions and move assets out of these vaults.
The network also has emergency controls that can pause parts of the system during security problems.
This is where the debate starts.
If validators can coordinate to stop the network during an internal security issue, critics ask why they cannot also stop funds linked to a known hack.
THORChain’s answer is that doing this would introduce censorship and change how a permissionless protocol works.
So the Bitget case does not prove that THORChain is centralized.
It shows something more important.
Decentralization is not just about having many validators. It is also about understanding what those validators can and cannot control.
That is the question the Bitget incident has put back in focus.
#Bitget #THORChain
After the Bitget hack, wallets linked to the attacker moved some stolen assets through THORChain and converted them into Bitcoin.
Bitget asked THORChain to block those addresses.
THORChain refused, saying it is a permissionless protocol and does not blacklist users.
This created a bigger debate about what decentralization actually means.
THORChain uses validator-controlled vaults. Validators work together to approve transactions and move assets out of these vaults.
The network also has emergency controls that can pause parts of the system during security problems.
This is where the debate starts.
If validators can coordinate to stop the network during an internal security issue, critics ask why they cannot also stop funds linked to a known hack.
THORChain’s answer is that doing this would introduce censorship and change how a permissionless protocol works.
So the Bitget case does not prove that THORChain is centralized.
It shows something more important.
Decentralization is not just about having many validators. It is also about understanding what those validators can and cannot control.
That is the question the Bitget incident has put back in focus.
#Bitget #THORChain
