THORChain vs NEAR: Decentralization Debate Ignited by Bitget Hack

A recent hack on Bitget has reignited a long-standing debate in the crypto community about whether decentralized protocols should block stolen funds. Approximately $387.5 million in funds tied to the attack began moving across chains, with some of that activity heading toward the cross-chain swap platform THORChain.

THORChain's refusal to refuse service to attacker-linked addresses has sparked a broader discussion: should permissionless infrastructure be capable of stopping known illicit flows, or does any ability to filter such activity undermine decentralization?

NEAR Intents, a competitor to THORChain, has taken a contrasting approach through its automated security layer (SHIELD), which identifies and blocks some hack-linked flows. NEAR's team argues that permissionlessness can coexist with automated, targeted controls.

THORChain developers frame 'known stolen funds' screening as incompatible with true permissionless design, citing the protocol's past response to an exploit exceeding $10 million in May. The core of the argument centers on what 'permissionless' should mean in practice.