Community Trust ScoreVerified
Fifty million dollars. That’s how much NEAR Intents says it caught before it could disappear into the broader crypto ecosystem following the Bitget hack. The protocol’s SHIELD system flagged and blocked attempted transfers tied to the attack, though the full picture is messier than that headline number suggests.
Why It Matters
The swift action by NEAR Intents to block $50 million in potentially stolen funds underscores the increasing importance of security measures within the crypto ecosystem, particularly as hacks become more sophisticated and frequent. This incident also highlights the challenges exchanges and protocols face in tracking and mitigating the movement of stolen assets, which can quickly complicate recovery efforts. As the market grapples with these risks, the ability of platforms to respond effectively could significantly influence investor confidence and the overall stability of the crypto landscape.
Attackers hit Bitget on Thursday, walking away with $387.5 million. It’s one of the bigger exchange hacks in recent memory, and the stolen funds didn’t sit still. Much of the money moved across chains toward Ethereum, per Alex Shevchenko, general manager of NEAR Intents. Cross-chain movement is basically the go-to playbook for anyone trying to obscure the origin of stolen crypto — hop chains, fragment the trail, and hope compliance teams can’t keep up.
SHIELD System Catches $503K, Misses $166K
NEAR Intents’ SHIELD system managed to freeze $503,000 in funds. Around $166,000 slipped through anyway. So it’s not a perfect wall — more like a net with a few holes. Shevchenko didn’t sugarcoat the limits, but he pushed back hard on the idea that permissionless systems have to stay neutral on stolen money. His argument: property rights matter, and a protocol can make ethical choices without abandoning its permissionless design. That’s a pretty pointed distinction, and one that’s going to sit uncomfortably with purists who think any selective intervention breaks the whole model.
NEAR Intents also decided to waive the 5% bounty Bitget offered for freezing and recovering attacker funds. Instead of taking the reward, the protocol said it would return the frozen assets through legal processes. That’s a meaningful call. A 5% cut of recovered funds from a $387.5 million hack isn’t small change, and walking away from it sends a signal about where NEAR Intents thinks the line is.
Circle and Tether moved too. Both companies blacklisted a wallet connected to the Bitget exploiter, freezing $318,013 in USDt and USDC combined. Stablecoin issuers have this power baked into their contracts — centralized control over token transfers — and they’ve used it before in high-profile theft cases. It’s fast, it’s effective, and it doesn’t require anyone’s permission.
THORChain Won’t Budge on Censorship Policy
THORChain is in a different spot entirely. The decentralized protocol hasn’t blocked addresses tied to the Bitget attack, and Bitget CEO Gracy Chen has been vocal about it. She’s urged THORChain to take the same kind of action NEAR Intents and others did. THORChain’s response? Its design doesn’t allow for targeted transaction censorship. The protocol has halted its entire network before for security reasons, but those were broad shutdowns — not surgical freezes aimed at specific wallets or funds.
That’s the core tension here. THORChain’s refusal isn’t negligence, at least not by its own framing. It’s a design principle. Selectively blocking transactions would require the kind of centralized decision-making that decentralized protocols are built to avoid. But that principle becomes a lot harder to defend when $387.5 million in stolen funds is flowing through your rails and the victim is publicly calling you out.
Shevchenko didn’t name THORChain directly in every statement, but the contrast was hard to miss. He said NEAR Intents is committed to actively fighting the laundering of hacked funds, and that while digital property rights are crucial, the infrastructure can’t become a tool for monetizing stolen property. That’s a direct shot at the neutrality argument.
What the Industry Is Actually Arguing About
The Bitget hack has cracked open a debate that’s been simmering for years. Decentralized finance promises open access — no gatekeepers, no permission required. But open access for everyone includes open access for thieves. And when hundreds of millions in stolen funds move through decentralized infrastructure, the question of who’s responsible gets uncomfortable fast.
It’s not really a new argument. Crypto has been wrestling with the tension between censorship resistance and compliance since at least the early days of mixer services and privacy coins. What’s shifted is the scale. Hacks are bigger. The funds move faster. And the pressure from victims, regulators, and the broader public has grown sharper.
NEAR Intents’ choice to skip the bounty and route frozen funds through legal channels is probably the most interesting detail in all of this. It suggests the protocol isn’t just trying to look good — it’s trying to build a framework that holds up if regulators start asking questions. Returning funds through legal processes rather than keeping a percentage is cleaner from a compliance standpoint, even if it costs more in the short term.
Circle and Tether’s moves were faster and arguably more impactful in dollar terms, given that $318,013 in stablecoins is now frozen. But stablecoin issuers have always had that lever available. The more novel part of the story is a cross-chain protocol like NEAR Intents making active, discretionary calls about which transactions to block — and then publicly defending that choice as an ethical one rather than a business decision.
Shevchenko’s position is that permissionless doesn’t have to mean consequence-free. Whether the rest of the industry buys that framing is unclear yet. THORChain clearly doesn’t. And there are plenty of other protocols that haven’t said anything at all.
The frozen $503,000 is still sitting in legal limbo.
Hub: USDC price, news, and analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
How much was stolen in the Bitget hack?
Attackers stole $387.5 million from Bitget, with much of the funds moving cross-chain toward Ethereum after the theft.
Did NEAR Intents accept Bitget’s bounty for freezing stolen funds?
No. NEAR Intents waived the 5% bounty Bitget offered and said it would return the frozen assets through legal processes instead.
Why didn’t THORChain block the Bitget hacker’s funds?
THORChain says its design doesn’t allow for selective transaction censorship — its previous network halts were broad shutdowns, not targeted freezes aimed at specific wallets.
