Bitget CEO Gracy Chen has asked THORChain to stop doing business with addresses linked to the exchange’s recent hack. THORChain refused, saying it simply doesn’t freeze accounts.
The request comes after Bitget lost $352 million in a hacking attack. Chen made her call for THORChain’s help public on Friday, asking the decentralized protocol to deny services to the accounts tied to the theft. Instead of agreeing, THORChain pushed back, arguing that freezing accounts isn’t part of how it operates.
What THORChain Said
THORChain’s response was blunt. The company said it doesn’t censor by design, and that any network halts it has made in the past were emergency security moves that hit the whole system, not specific accounts. It framed those halts as “not a selective freeze of specific funds or an individual swap.”
The distinction matters for anyone whose funds passed through THORChain during the hack. If the protocol never freezes accounts, then no account tied to the theft was frozen. That leaves the funds free to move elsewhere.
NEAR Intents’ Fight Against Laundering
While THORChain refused to act, NEAR Intents took the opposite approach. Shevchenko said the project would actively fight the laundering of hacked funds.
The quote is direct. It argues that crypto can’t claim digital property rights for users while building systems that make stolen property easy to sell. The tension is visible: one project wants to freeze accounts, the other refuses to touch them.
The Money at Stake
The figures are large. Bitget lost $352 million in the attack.
Who Is Involved
Chen is the CEO of Bitget, the exchange hit by the attack. She reached out to THORChain directly, asking it to refuse services to the addresses tied to the hack. THORChain is a decentralized protocol that swaps assets between blockchains.
The two sides now sit on opposite sides of a question with no obvious answer. One wants to stop the funds, the other won’t touch them.
What Happens Next
The situation leaves a few open questions:
- How much of the stolen $352 million has already moved through THORChain?
- Which projects are blocking funds and which aren’t?
- Whether any project will actually freeze accounts tied to the hack, given THORChain’s refusal to do so.
For anyone tracking the stolen funds, the answer depends on which protocol they pass through. A protocol that freezes accounts stops them. A protocol that doesn’t let them move freely.
The Problem With Censorship
THORChain’s refusal to freeze accounts is rooted in its design. The company argues that selective freezes affect only specific funds or individual swaps, which isn’t what its network does.
A victim of a hack wants the funds stopped. A protocol that won’t stop them offers no comfort.
Where the Funds Are Going
Whether THORChain moves any of the remaining stolen funds remains unknown. The company hasn’t said it will, and it hasn’t said it won’t.
The Verdict
The situation is uncomfortable. A CEO asks for help, and the company she asked refuses to comply. That leaves the funds free to move, even if some other projects are blocking them.
THORChain’s position is principled. Its network doesn’t freeze accounts, and it frames past halts as emergency security mechanisms affecting the protocol broadly. That principle protects users who want their funds to move freely. It also helps thieves.
The split responsibility means the funds could still move through the protocols that refuse to freeze them. The ones that do freeze accounts might catch some of the stolen money, but not all of it.
For now, the $352 million theft remains unresolved. The rest of the stolen funds are still out there, and THORChain has made clear it won’t stop them.
See the a run of 18 images at Cointelegraph.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.