THORChain Faces Backlash Over Refusal to Block Bitget Hackers
TREE NEWS reports: SlowMist founder Yu Xian (known as @evilcos) has publicly criticized THORChain for refusing to freeze addresses tied to the Bitget exploit, accusing the cross-chain protocol of hiding behind decentralization while profiting from hacker transaction fees. The funds from the Bitget breach have been linked to North Korean hacking traces, and stablecoin issuers Circle and Tether have already frozen related assets. Yet THORChain declined a request from Bitget CEO Gracy Chen to block the attacker’s addresses, arguing it is a decentralized network with no authority to intervene — comparing itself to Bitcoin and Ethereum.
The Double Standard at the Heart of the Debate
Yu Xian pointed out that THORChain has previously activated intervention mechanisms when it was itself the victim of an exploit, raising serious questions about consistency. “Decentralization should not be a shield for collecting hacker fees,” he wrote, framing the issue as one of selective principle rather than technical limitation. The criticism cuts to a central tension in DeFi: protocols invoke immutability when it suits them but can move quickly when their own treasury is at risk.
Why This Matters for Cross-Chain Security
THORChain is a major liquidity hub for native asset swaps, and its RUNE token and pooled assets give it significant market influence. If its validators and node operators are seen as indifferent to illicit flows, the protocol risks:
- Regulatory scrutiny — authorities may treat it as a money-transmission or sanctions-evasion vector.
- Counterparty risk — exchanges and bridges may restrict integration to avoid compliance exposure.
- Reputational damage — users increasingly expect protocols to coordinate on security, not hide behind code.
The Bitget case also highlights how stablecoin issuers have become de facto enforcers. Circle and Tether’s swift freezes show that centralized stablecoins can act where decentralized protocols claim they cannot — a contrast that undermines THORChain’s defense.
Forward-Looking Perspective
The incident is likely to accelerate a broader reckoning: can DeFi protocols remain credibly neutral while also being responsible actors? Expect more pressure for on-chain threat-sharing, faster validator-level responses, and clearer standards for when intervention is justified. THORChain’s stance may satisfy its ideological base, but it risks isolating the protocol from the very institutions that provide its liquidity and legitimacy. In the long run, decentralization will be judged not by what a protocol refuses to do, but by what it chooses to do when the stakes are highest.
