Differing Responses to Stolen Funds
Following a hack on Bitget on September 24 involving millions of dollars in stolen funds, a public debate has emerged over whether decentralized protocols have a moral obligation to block illicit capital. Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget, publicly appealed to cross-chain swap platform THORChain to refuse service to attacker-linked addresses, stating that the industry was watching.
THORChain ultimately refused to block the funds. Developer Boone Wheeler explained that a truly permissionless protocol is blind to transaction provenance and cannot block specific funds without losing its permissionless nature.
In contrast, cross-chain transaction competitor NEAR Intents intervened to block hack-linked funds. Its automated security layer, SHIELD, identified over $50 million in attempted flows tied to the Bitget incident, stopping $503,000 during execution while allowing $166,000 to pass through. NEAR also waived its share of Bitget's recovery bounty.
Questions of True Permissionlessness
NEAR Intents faced criticism from skeptics who argued that its intervention proves the platform is not entirely decentralized or permissionless. However, crypto lawyer Yuriy Brisov noted that because SHIELD operates as an automated system without a manual compliance team, it may still fall within the protections afforded to decentralized protocols.
The debate has also highlighted past actions by THORChain. Critics pointed out that THORChain validators voted to halt the chain in May after an automated system triggered following a vault exploit. Wheeler clarified that network halts are used strictly for active technical problems or solvency checks, noting that the system lacks the functionality to screen individual addresses or transactions.
The Balance Between Neutrality and Security
NEAR General Manager Alex Shevchenko defended his platform's approach, stating that while anyone can build on or transact through NEAR Protocol, not every application built on it must process every request. He added that SHIELD is designed to protect the wider blockchain economy from capital drain caused by major hacks.
Bitget's Chen argued that permissionless infrastructure does not preclude mechanisms for detecting and responding to illicit flows, suggesting that ecosystem participants should cooperate where legally and technically possible.
Conversely, libertarian advocates like Joël Valenzuela maintained that allowing protocols to draw lines on stolen funds opens the door to censorship and compromises the core definition of permissionless systems. Max Shannon, senior research associate at Bitwise Europe, noted that the divide highlights differing views on credibility and neutrality, observing that protocols like THORChain and NEAR still face the challenge of earning trust while adhering to their respective philosophies.
