THORChain Refuses to Block the Bitget Hacker
Updated: 13 hours ago
TL;DR: THORChain declined to block the Bitget hacker's transactions, reigniting the debate over whether decentralised protocols should — or can — police criminal funds.
Neutrality versus responsibility
As the Bitget attacker moved funds, decentralised cross-chain protocol THORChain chose not to intervene, with its community citing neutrality and censorship-resistance. It echoes earlier controversies where DeFi protocols processed funds tied to major hacks, drawing criticism from regulators and praise from decentralisation purists.
The unresolved tension in DeFi
This is DeFi's core dilemma: a system designed to be unstoppable is, by definition, unstoppable for everyone — including criminals.
As regulators scrutinise DeFi more closely, protocols face pressure to add compliance controls that undercut the very neutrality they were built on. How the industry resolves this will shape whether DeFi is treated as infrastructure or as a liability.
Quick FAQ
Q: Why won't THORChain block the funds?
Its design and community favour neutrality and censorship-resistance, arguing the protocol should not choose which transactions are valid.
Q: Is that legal?
It is a grey area. Regulators increasingly expect controls on illicit funds, but decentralised protocols argue they are neutral infrastructure, not intermediaries.
The takeaway: DeFi's promise of unstoppable money is also its liability. The neutrality debate is now a regulatory frontline.
How is your business thinking about this shift? We'd love to hear where you see digital finance heading next.
Want to turn digital-finance trends into a marketing strategy that wins customers? Get in touch at danieln@merxmarketing.co.uk.
Source: Compiled from CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, The Block and Decrypt reporting, September 2026.
Related reading
Written by Daniel Nikolla, Founder of Merx Marketing Ltd and Marketing Minute
Comments