THORChain Refuses to Block Bitget Hack Wallets
Bitget wants THORChain to block the addresses tied to the $387.5 million hack, but the protocol is sticking to its permissionless model. The case is putting the debate over responsibility in cross-chain swaps and Bitcoin back in the spotlight.
Key Takeaways
- THORChain refuses to block wallets linked to the September 24 Bitget hack, in which $387.5 million was stolen.
- Bitget asked THORChain to step in because the hacker addresses are publicly known and being tracked.
- THORChain is sticking to its permissionless design, while stolen funds are being converted to Bitcoin through the protocol.
THORChain refuses to block wallets linked to the crypto exchange exchange Bitget hack, in which $387.5 million (€340 million) was stolen on September 24. Some of that loot is now being converted into Bitcoin through the protocol, which does not do identity checks for swaps between blockchains.
Bitget Asks for Action
Bitget says the hacker's wallets are publicly known and being tracked. CEO Gracy Chen asked THORChain to refuse the addresses and said decentralization is no excuse for helping move known stolen funds.
According to blockchain tracker MistTrack, this is not the first time THORChain has ended up in a situation like this. After last year's Bybit hack, nearly $1.2 billion (€1.1 billion) in stolen money was traced through THORChain.
THORChain Sticks to Its Design
THORChain says it is permissionless and open to everyone, just like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain. The team said the question is not only on THORChain, but also on the responsibility of those networks when known stolen money is being processed.
The debate comes at a sensitive time for the protocol. In May, THORChain paused itself after a loss of about $10 million (€8.8 million), and in earlier cases the network was also temporarily paused after a hack. That makes the current refusal to block the Bitget wallets even more notable.
Why This Matters
For European crypto readers, this case shows how hard it is to draw the line between open infrastructure and intervention when abuse happens. If stolen funds can quickly be moved from one chain to Bitcoin, it becomes harder for exchanges and protocols to stop the flow once it has been publicly tracked. That could once again increase pressure on the industry to make clearer who is responsible for what.
The fallout from the hack is still visible too: Circle and Tether have already frozen part of the stolen funds, but most of it remained out of reach in assets that cannot be frozen.
