Giá THORChain

$GRVT TL;DR THORChain rejected incorporating selective censorship mechanisms: the protocol cannot block individual transactions based on identity or history. The Litecoin pause highlights the difference between halting a chain for solvency reasons and censoring a specific operation on subjective grounds. Chad Barraford clarified that changes to the protocol require consensus from node operators, with no possibility of unilateral control by the founders. THORChain maintains a clear stance on one of the most sensitive debates in the crypto industry: the protocol does not allow blocking individual transactions, regardless of the origin of the funds involved. This was established in a public discussion that distinguishes between two very different types of intervention: temporarily pausing the entire network for technical reasons and selectively censoring a specific operation. One of the most recent examples was the Litecoin pause. A node operator detected unusual activity and a price discrepancy, which prompted the suspension of operations for approximately one hour. After verifying that no insolvency issue existed, another node resumed activity. This decision responded to an objective technical condition, not to the identity of the users involved or the history of the transferred funds. The Problem of Delegating Subjective Authority in THORChain The central argument against selective censorship points to an institutional risk: if THORChain can determine which transactions are acceptable, there must necessarily be someone responsible for defining exceptions, maintaining blocking lists and deciding when to intervene. For those who participated in the debate, this transforms open infrastructure into a system subject to discretionary decisions, exposed to external pressures and potentially captured by particular interests. Chad Barraford, a THORChain developer, dismissed having unilateral control over the protocol. As he explained, developers can propose changes and new features, but node operators must voluntarily adopt updates. Important decisions require consensus, making it technically impossible for a founder to activate a censorship mechanism on their own. A Matter of Principles The permissionless, KYC-free model is, for the team, part of THORChain’s core value proposition. The ability to perform swaps without creating an account or providing identity information is defended not only as a technical feature, but as a principle. It is also noted that KYC databases accumulate sensitive information that can generate additional privacy and security risks. On the other hand, version v3.21 is currently under testing on stagenet and included fixes related to churn, slashing and BFT signing. Zcash was awaiting the completion of a churn to enable its pool, and Monero is the next possible integration. Dynamic fees are already active for ShapeShift, Symbiosis and Edge Wallet, while the SwapKit revenue share remains delayed due to technical issues, with a proposal that contemplates distributing approximately 20% of the revenue generated by that flow.

$GRVT Crypto’s long-running argument over whether decentralized protocols should block stolen funds flared again after the Bitget hack. According to the reporting around the incident, roughly $387.5 million in funds tied to the attack began moving across chains, and some of that activity reportedly headed toward the decentralized cross-chain swap platform THORChain. Bitget CEO Gracy Chen publicly urged THORChain to refuse service to attacker-linked addresses, warning that “the industry is watching.” THORChain did not comply, and the decision has now become the focus of a broader debate: should permissionless infrastructure be technically capable of stopping known illicit flows—or does any ability to filter such activity undermine decentralization? Key takeaways Bitget’s CEO called on THORChain to block services for addresses linked to the Sept. 24 hack, as an estimated $387.5 million in stolen funds moved across chains. THORChain declined, reigniting a dispute between those who want protocols to refuse stolen funds and those who argue that permissionless systems must remain blind to provenance. Critics point to a past May response by THORChain—when validators halted trading after an automated system triggered during a vault-draining exploit exceeding $10 million. NEAR Intents, a cross-chain transaction competitor, has taken a contrasting approach through an automated security layer (SHIELD) that identifies and blocks some hack-linked flows. NEAR’s team argues permissionlessness can coexist with automated, targeted controls, while THORChain’s developers frame “known stolen funds” screening as incompatible with true permissionless design. THORChain’s stance: permissionlessness and provenance screening The core of the argument centers on what “permissionless” should mean in practice. THORChain developer Boone Wheeler argues that a genuinely permissionless protocol cannot selectively treat funds based on their provenance. As he explained in response to the criticism, a permissionless system is “blind to their provenance,” and enabling it to block specific stolen funds would effectively make it permissioned. The backdrop to this position is not hypothetical. The report notes THORChain had previously been used during major exchange-related hacks, including an episode described as Bybit hackers moving $1.2 billion through the protocol. For proponents of THORChain’s approach, that track record is less an indictment of the design than a reminder that permissionless infrastructure cannot—and should not—be expected to behave like centralized compliance tooling. Where the critics see the contradiction Critics argue THORChain’s “hard line” on censorship-by-design doesn’t fully match its operational history. The debate cites Cointelegraph reporting about THORChain halting trading in May after an automated system triggered during a vulnerability that drained more than $10 million from a vault. NEAR Intents is often raised as a direct counterexample. According to the coverage referenced in the article, NEAR’s SHIELD layer identified more than $50 million in attempted flows tied to the Bitget incident and stopped $503,000 during execution, while additional amounts were able to pass through (the report says $166,000). Supporters of NEAR’s model argue that automated detection and targeted intervention are a practical middle ground rather than a betrayal of decentralization. NEAR Intents: permissionless access, automated targeted controls NEAR Intents general manager Alex Shevchenko frames the issue as separation of open participation from the obligation of every application to process every request. In the discussion, he emphasizes that NEAR Protocol itself is permissionless—anyone can build, transact, and become a validator—but that does not automatically mean every application must accept all flows. NEAR Intents’ SHIELD reportedly uses a combination of public on-chain signals, an internal anti-money laundering (AML) database, and third-party intelligence providers referenced in its risk and compliance documentation. In addition to the Bitget-related activity, the article notes that SHIELD previously identified suspicious behavior connected to an Omni deposit/withdrawal interaction exploit worth $3.8 million and halted activity. Shevchenko’s argument is that blocking suspected stolen funds protects not only NEAR Intents but also the wider cross-chain ecosystem. He ties the policy choice to a broader outcome: hacks drain capital and activity, so screening and restricting money laundering helps preserve the integrity of the on-chain economy. “Permissionless” versus “neutral”: the libertarian critique and the investor trust question The opposing view in the article is articulated by Joël Valenzuela, a libertarian and cypherpunk associated with Dash. He argues that permissionless protocols should not draw a line at all, even when stolen funds are identified, because the ability to filter introduces permissioning by another name. For him, preventing stolen funds is an opening to broader censorship pressures—what he calls Pandora’s Box—where eventually “censorship of innocents” becomes possible. Valenzuela instead points to centralized exchanges as places where security and operational hardening should be strengthened, asserting that exchanges that custody large sums should take security more seriously and arguing that decentralized exchanges are “the way forward.” From the perspective of research and market structure, Max Shannon of Bitwise Europe is quoted emphasizing trust-building. He suggests that newer protocols still have to earn credibility, and he calls the refusal to launder hack proceeds a sound stance. He also expects that if THORChain refuses to block stolen funds, some money laundering flows may shift toward the alternative protocol model represented by NEAR Intents—essentially transforming the competition into one over “who will intervene” once illicit activity appears. Shannon characterizes the dispute as a clash between a “credible neutrality at all costs” ideal and the practical reality that protocols may increasingly be evaluated by how they respond to known abuse. He argues that this is where the NEAR Intents approach differs from THORChain, framing the difference as not only technical but philosophical—what the system optimizes for, and at what cost. What to watch next As this argument moves from theory to repeated incidents, investors and builders should watch whether automated, targeted controls become more standardized across cross-chain platforms—and whether THORChain’s “no provenance screening” design remains sustainable as users, counterparties, and regulators apply pressure. The next major hack-linked routing will likely determine which model gains wider legitimacy in the real world. This article was originally published as Community Debate Highlights Friction Between THORChain and NEAR Ideals on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

$GRVT President Donald Trump is expected to appoint Jay Clayton, US director of national intelligence, as the new AI czar, CNN and other media reported Friday, citing unidentified sources. Cointelegraph reported Sept. 20 that Trump planned to create an “AI Force” modeled after the Space Force and appoint an artificial intelligence czar. The president posted on Truth Social that his new project would manage the fast-growing AI sector without adding regulations that could slow innovation. Trump’s actions followed several public warnings about the potential dangers of AI. Cointelegraph reported on Sept. 12 that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had written a three-step proposal to pace the speed of AI development that if left unchecked, might “outrun our ability to understand and control these systems.” Anthropic chief urges slowdown in AI development to safer pace Subsequently, Anthropic said it had chosen Accenture as an embedded evaluator to help moderate the pace of AI development, moving ahead with the first step outlined in Amodei’s proposal, Cointelegraph said. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded positively to Amodei’s proposal, although Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang did not, arguing that such regulation was not necessary. On Tuesday, Trump gathered AI and technology chiefs at the White House to sign a new commitment to “self-police” their companies’ AI models and development, according to CNN. Clayton led SEC during Trump’s first term CBS News first reported that Clayton was the frontrunner for the AI position. Still, a White House official told CBS that any such announcement would come directly from the president, dismissing the reports as speculation. Clayton led the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term, served as interim US Attorney for the Southern District of New York and is expected to also remain in his current role as director of national intelligence, the sources told CNN. The Senate confirmed Clayton in July to lead the intelligence community. When asked about AI during his confirmation hearing, Clayton said the technology is a “game changer” and that it’s “not only an opportunity but a threat,” according to CNN. Crypto czar David Sacks argues AI threat is Orwellian, not Terminator Cointelegraph reported in March that David Sacks, a venture capitalist who became a special White House official under Trump last year, had wrapped up a 130-day tenure as crypto and AI czar. Under ​US rules, such special ⁠government employees are limited to 130 days of work in a 12-month period. “We’ve now used up that time,” Sacks told Bloomberg in March, noting that he would continue making policy recommendations across a broad range of tech industries as co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Magazine: Furious debate about THORChain vs NEAR shows idealism has limits

$GRVT Bitget’s CEO Gracy Chen has called on THORChain to block addresses associated with hackers, arguing that decentralization should not shield stolen funds. This request follows a significant hack in May 2026 that cost THORChain approximately $10.7 million. The ongoing debate raises crucial questions about the responsibilities of decentralized networks, as highlighted in a tweet by WuBlockchain. The Story So Far In the last 24 hours, the crypto market has shown mixed signals, with THORChain standing out due to its ongoing debate over decentralization. Bitget’s call for THORChain to reject service to identified hacker addresses has sparked discussions about the protocol’s role in preventing the facilitation of stolen funds. Following a major hack that resulted in significant losses, THORChain co-founder Chad Barraford previously discussed enhancing security measures, including anomaly detection and emergency pauses. This incident emphasizes the fine line decentralized protocols must navigate between operational freedom and responsibility. At a Glance Bitget’s CEO requested THORChain to block hacker addresses. The request follows a $10.7 million loss from a hack. THORChain’s decentralization faces increased scrutiny. Barraford discussed potential security enhancements and procedures. The debate raises questions about the role of decentralized protocols in security. Market Snapshot Currently, THORChain’s trading volume is not reported, indicating thin liquidity in the market. Despite this, the scrutiny over its decentralized nature and security measures could influence future trading dynamics. As the situation unfolds, traders will be keenly watching how THORChain responds to these security concerns and what implications this may have on the broader market. THORChain is a decentralized liquidity protocol that enables cross-chain trading without intermediaries. The scrutiny arises as protocols like THORChain must balance decentralization with the need for security, especially after significant breaches. This dynamic places additional pressure on decentralized networks to define their operational limits regarding security measures. What Traders Are Watching Next Traders are closely monitoring THORChain’s response to Bitget’s call for action against hackers. The ongoing discussions about decentralization could influence trading sentiment and impact liquidity. As more exchanges and decentralized platforms face similar scrutiny, the potential for regulatory implications could shape market dynamics significantly. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The post Bitget Calls on THORChain to Block Hacker Addresses appeared first on Coinfomania.