Community Trust ScoreVerified
Bitget got hit hard. On September 24, hackers pulled $387.5 million from the exchange in one of the more jarring thefts the industry has seen in recent memory. Bitget CEO Gracy Chen went public fast, urging Thorchain to freeze the attackers’ wallets before the funds could be moved further. Thorchain said no.
The protocol’s response was blunt: blocking addresses isn’t something a decentralized network does. Thorchain compared the ask to telling Bitcoin miners to stop processing transactions — framing the request as a fundamental misunderstanding of how permissionless infrastructure works. Bitcoin doesn’t screen senders. Ethereum doesn’t either. And per Thorchain, neither should it.
Who’s Pushing Back — and Why
Not everyone bought that framing. Joel Valenzuela from Dashpay came out swinging against Chen’s request, pointing to the messy precedent that blockchain rollbacks create. His argument: once you start reversing or blocking transactions for one party, you’ve broken something that can’t easily be unbroken. That’s a legitimate concern in decentralization circles, and it’s not a fringe view.
But Star Xu of OKX cut the other direction entirely. He questioned whether Thorchain is actually decentralized in any meaningful sense. His point was specific: Thorchain’s validator model gives participants a level of control over assets that you simply don’t see in Bitcoin or Ethereum’s consensus mechanisms. If validators can coordinate to pause the network — and they have — then the “we can’t intervene” argument gets a lot murkier.
That’s the tension at the center of all this. Thorchain’s community has some supporters who back the non-interference line. But plenty of key opinion leaders in the space aren’t buying it, and they’re getting louder.
The Selective Intervention Problem
Thorchain’s history makes this harder to defend. Back in May, the protocol paused its own network — a deliberate, coordinated action taken to protect its own vaults. That’s not nothing. That’s validators choosing to intervene when the risk hit close to home.
Critics seized on it immediately. If Thorchain can pause for self-protection, the argument that it’s incapable of acting in response to external theft doesn’t really hold up. The network made a choice in May. It’s making a different choice now. Whether that’s principled or convenient depends on who you ask, and right now a lot of people are asking.
And it’s not the first time Thorchain has been in this spot. In February 2025, the platform was used to move funds connected to North Korean hackers. The FBI applied pressure. Thorchain didn’t block those transactions either. That case involved $1.2 billion stolen from Bybit by the Lazarus Group — a figure that got serious attention from law enforcement and the broader crypto community alike.
Bybit’s founder, for what it’s worth, stepped in during the current Bitget situation to offer help tracing the stolen funds. That’s a notable gesture given the February history, and it probably says something about how exchanges are starting to think about mutual exposure to these kinds of attacks.
The Bitget hack itself has drawn attention to just how effective cross-platform movement can be for attackers. By routing funds through multiple venues, including decentralized protocols like Thorchain, hackers can complicate recovery efforts significantly. It’s not a new tactic, but the scale here — $387.5 million — puts the mechanics in sharp relief.
Decentralized exchanges have long occupied an awkward space when it comes to theft and fraud response. The core pitch is censorship resistance and open access. But that same openness becomes a liability when stolen funds start flowing through. There’s no clean answer, and the Bitget situation isn’t producing one.
What’s clear is that the crypto community remains genuinely split. Some people think Thorchain is right on principle, even if the optics are rough. Others think the May pause proved the platform can act and is simply choosing not to. And a smaller group is questioning whether Thorchain’s decentralization claims hold up at all under scrutiny.
The validator model question Xu raised probably deserves more attention than it’s getting. If a set of validators can coordinate to stop the network for one reason, the philosophical argument for inaction in another scenario gets thin fast.
Gracy Chen’s public push put Thorchain in an uncomfortable position. The protocol pushed back, cited its architecture, and drew the Bitcoin comparison. But with the May pause on the record and $1.2 billion in Lazarus-linked funds already in the rearview mirror, Thorchain’s decentralization defense is carrying a heavier load than it probably expected.
The $387.5 million is still out there.
Hub: Bitcoin price, news, and analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened in the Bitget hack on September 24?
Hackers drained $387.5 million from Bitget, prompting CEO Gracy Chen to publicly urge Thorchain to block the attackers’ wallets.
Has Thorchain ever blocked or paused transactions before?
Yes — Thorchain paused its network in May to protect its own vaults, a move critics say contradicts its claims of being unable to intervene in external hacks.
Why It Matters
The refusal of Thorchain to block the wallets associated with the Bitget hack underscores the philosophical divide between decentralized protocols and centralized exchanges. This incident highlights the ongoing challenges in the crypto space regarding security and governance, raising questions about the responsibilities of decentralized networks in mitigating the fallout from hacks that impact users across the ecosystem. As the industry grapples with security measures and the implications of decentralization, this situation may influence future discussions on the balance between user protection and the principles of immutability and censorship resistance that underpin blockchain technology.
