Furious debate about THORChain vs NEAR shows idealism has limits
The furious debate over Bitget’s $387.7M of hacked funds comes down to whether ideals around “permissionless and decentralized” tech means never intervening — even if you could.
The contentious debate over Bitget's $387.7 million in hacked funds has centered on the extent to which decentralized, permissionless technologies should intervene in such cases. Bitget CEO Gracy Chen called on THORChain, a cross-chain swap platform, to refuse service to addresses linked to the attackers, but THORChain declined, citing its commitment to the ideals of permissionless and decentralized technology.
Meanwhile, NEAR Protocol, a competitor in the cross-chain transaction space, took a different approach, using its automated security layer, SHIELD, to identify and block hack-linked funds. While NEAR Protocol's intervention has drawn criticism for undermining its purported permissionless and decentralized nature, the company argues that its SHIELD system is an automated solution that does not rely on human intervention.
Both THORChain and NEAR Protocol have been under scrutiny for their handling of stolen funds, with some arguing that they should have more control, while others maintain that their idealism has its limits.
Written by urgent.news from Cointelegraph's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
