THORChain's "Decentralization" Faces Scrutiny After Bitget Asks It to Block Hackers Bitget CEO Gracy Chen Gracy Chen @Bitget asked THORChain to refuse service to publicly identified attacker addresses, saying decentralization should not be a shield for facilitating stolen funds. THORChain emphasized that its network is permissionless. In May 2026,... an attack on one of THORChain’s vaults caused approximately $10.7 million in losses. Automatic safeguards and coordinated action by node operators subsequently halted the network. Co-founder Chad Barraford later discussed ideas for anomaly detection and emergency pauses on a podcast, outlining security checks and asset migration procedures before trading could resume. While halting a network is not the same as freezing specific addresses, the dispute raises a question: Under what circumstances should a decentralized protocol intervene when stolen funds originate from an external platform?show more

The pause in May was a solvency checker. THORChain was completely broken and could not function. It has nothing to do with arbitrary "pausing". And the video clips shown have no revelance to the current situation. THORChain is controlled by Nodes, is decentralized and is permissionless. Nodes can and will pause if there is something wrong with the Native Layer 1s we support, like LTC having the reorg issue a few months ago (which caused the solvency checker to fire as under 1k went missing from a vault) The devs have no control over the network, the quorum of the Node Operators is what determines THORChain's destiny.

@GracyBitget Chinese exchange cartels trying hard to smear thorchain rn

@GracyBitget Halting a network is a blunt tool, but at least it doesn't depend on someone deciding who counts as an attacker. If THORChain adds any intervention path, the criteria and the decision-makers should be published before the next incident

@GracyBitget The catch is THORChain has no central switch to flip, blocking one address means validators voting to change routing logic, which is a much higher bar than an exchange freeze

@GracyBitget If THORChain blocks one attacker address on request, is it still neutral infrastructure or does it become a de facto compliance layer picking winners case by case?

@GracyBitget Shut them down!

@GracyBitget Permissionless cuts both ways. Hard question with no clean answer.

@GracyBitget THORChain 的节点集本就有限，所谓去中心化更像是许可制的马甲。真正该量化的是跨链流动性池的滑点与深度，而不是拿“去中心化”当挡箭牌替黑客洗币。

@GracyBitget In contrast, NEAR's @AlexAuroraDev has argued that "permissionless doesn't mean neutral" where stolen funds are concerned. The divergence in the approaches taken by the two networks sums up one of the industry's core tensions.

@GracyBitget Bullish?

우 블록체인에 따르면 비트겟 CEO 그레이시 첸이 THORChain에 공개적으로 확인된 공격자 주소에 대한 서비스를 거부해 달라고 요청했고, THORChain은 네트워크가 허가 없는 구조라는 점을 강조했다. 이 논쟁은 외부 플랫폼에서 도난된 자금에 탈중앙화 프로토콜이 어느 선까지 개입해야 하는지를 두고 이어지고 있다.

@GracyBitget did Chad deploy those emergency pauses.

@GracyBitget Căng nhỉ, decentralized mà bị ép block thì còn gì là phi tập trung nữa 🤔 Mà thôi bảo vệ tiền user vẫn hơn

@GracyBitget This is a complex issue. It's interesting to see the debate on decentralization versus intervention for stolen funds.