Circle and Tether Freeze $318,000 Linked to Bitget Hack

[fullfitlarry]

https://x.com/WuBlockchain/status/2103674639780286743

And let the games begin, although this is just a small amount, this could be a little victory to Bitget. We don't want Tether or any entity to just freeze accounts, but this time if it involves one of the biggest hack this year, then most likely majority might agree with it.

There is also a call to Thorchain to reject incoming transactions from the hackers from one report. So it's going to be a battle to the hackers on how to hide their trail since the hack.


Do you guys agree with this move? Or Tether or anyone shouldn't used their power to freeze even if it comes from hacks or exploits?

[TastyChillySauce00]

It was unheard of seeing Circle act relatively quickly to freeze the hacker's funds, usually they will require court orders, and so on. I hope they're just as quick in the future to minimize hacking casualty.

Do you guys agree with this move? Or Tether or anyone shouldn't used their power to freeze even if it comes from hacks or exploits?

Well, Tether or Circle freeze a lot of funds regularly, they might as well freeze hacker's funds quickly. Nothing to lose when the system is already centralized and both stablecoin issuer can do anything at their will.
Not freezing would only make their legal compliance and centralized system useless which defeat the purpose of why they are centralized in the first place.

[abaeze]

Although they were able to freeze a small amount of the hacked money, not the entire amount. However, I appreciate the move to freeze the hacked money to return or recover it to the rightful owner and I don't think this move is completely unreasonable, but it would not be right to make it a normal rule either. Because if centralized companies freeze any account later or harass someone intentionally or abuse their power, then the matter will be worse.

So the biggest risk here is centralized control. Today the hacker's funds are being frozen, tomorrow if an innocent user's transaction is wrongly identified, the same power can be used against him then that will be unfair. So, Imo, if such a move is made, at least there should be clear evidence and specific criteria and a review system or unfreeze system for accounts that were wrongly frozen.

[asriloni]

Freezing the small portion of fund literally means nothing when 99% of funds are still on hacker's wallet. However, those companies deserves appreciations because they're still doing it, though the amount was not significant.

This freezing feature is the only feature that got blamed by people, but sometimes it saved lots of people. I personally agree with this move because security has to be the main concern, and this freezing function in stablecoin contract obviously helping a lot when it comes to the hacking case.

We might be losing more if there was no this feature because i remember multi millions USD have been saved due to this feature.

The only concern it's against decentralization, but it's not everything needs to be decentralized. When you being a part of victim who lost your money due to the hack, you would be hoping those stable companies freeze your money instead of getting stolen by hacker.

But we need those stable coin issuers to have faster reaction when it comes to the hacking case. It may take days for them to aware when one of platform got hacked, then sometimes thelr help is coming a bit too late.

[Iranus]

Do you guys agree with this move? Or Tether or anyone shouldn't used their power to freeze even if it comes from hacks or exploits?

Tbh, since it is not our money. Some people would not support this idea since it goes against BTC's whole core decentralization philosophy.

But if it was our money, and circle or tether were doing this to help get our funds back, we'd probably be pretty damn happy about it.  

Personally, both decentralization and centralization have their own pros and cons. Using power to stop bad actors is a good thing. Centralization is not inherently bad, real question is how that power actually gets used.

[PostQuantumBTC]

Do you guys agree with this move? Or Tether or anyone shouldn't used their power to freeze even if it comes from hacks or exploits?

I know some people on this forum do not like that Tether and Circle can freeze the coins that they are issuing, but the people continue to use the coin. You will see someone that against it go to the lending section and borrow money in USDT. This is what I have noticed so far.

Your question about if will I support Tether and Circle for making the good move? Yes, I support both the stable coin companies. The people that hacked Bitget are thieves and they are not the right owner of the coins that they stole.

[WatChe]

Tbh, since it is not our money. Some people would not support this idea since it goes against BTC's whole core decentralization philosophy.

But if it was our money, and circle or tether were doing this to help get our funds back, we'd probably be pretty damn happy about it.  

Personally, both decentralization and centralization have their own pros and cons. Using power to stop bad actors is a good thing. Centralization is not inherently bad, real question is how that power actually gets used.

In centralised coins, an authority has complete control over the blockchain and they can do whatever looks best to them. Today we support this decision because Tether has freezed accounts that are involved in an illegal activity. We have seen in the past that US government has blocked tether wallets linked with Iran Central Bank and that means US government can do that in future too against any country. There is no clear cut answer about the question that whether centralisation is good or not, it also has its own pros and cons.   

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

I actually expected that this was going to happen because I know that those hackers were going to quickly look for means to split the money into different source to make tracking harder. I wished it was possible to freez all of that money that they stole and still apprehend the culprits because that's the only way to prevent other future plans that they are planning to execute. I don't see anything bad in freezing the suspended stolen funds, perhaps we already know that that's one disadvantage of centralized platforms, their ability to freeze one's asset, but in this case, the action taken is very right. If one did something legal and it trying to prevent centralized platforms, you can use Bitcoin off centralized exchanges.

[$crypto$]

There is also a call to Thorchain to reject incoming transactions from the hackers from one report. So it's going to be a battle to the hackers on how to hide their trail since the hack.

Thorchain cannot freeze transactions or assets because they have a "permissionless" feature that hackers often use to mix their coins.

Previous Thorchain statement: https://x.com/THORChain/status/2007120953109815673

Do you guys agree with this move? Or Tether or anyone shouldn't used their power to freeze even if it comes from hacks or exploits?

Tether or Circle can freeze anyone's assets based on reports, we all know this because centralized is the same as fiat. I support this freeze if it comes from a hack.

[Slow death]

Do you guys agree with this move? Or Tether or anyone shouldn't used their power to freeze even if it comes from hacks or exploits?

I agree with this movement. We need everyone in the cryptocurrency market who has the power to recover stolen assets, identify the culprits, or at least prevent them from spending the coins to mobilize and take action. Only in this way will we see a reduction in hacker attacks, as perpetrators will realize they can be tracked down or that they won't be able to use the stolen coins. Just two days ago, the CEO of Bitget stated that he suspects the attack was carried out by North Korean hackers.

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen said a preliminary investigation found IP addresses matching VPN choices associated with a DPRK hacking group.

source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitget-ceo-suspects-north-korea-behind-352m-hack-citing-ip-clues

Let's assume they get it right and the police manage to locate the hacker's house, only to find it's in North Korea. How would any government manage to apprehend the hacker inside North Korea? Obviously, if it really is a North Korean hacker, he wouldn't be acting on his own; instead, he would likely be receiving orders from the North Korean government. Hacker attacks involving North Korea are on the rise; last March, there were reports that Bybit had been targeted by North Korean hackers. Using conventional methods like police or the courts won't work with these guys, because they live under, or are directed by, a dictatorial government that would never extradite its hackers. So, in my opinion, it is better for private companies to start acting the way Circle and Tether are, exchanges should start doing the same thing, too.

[Tipstar]

It's not a new thing. It's been a while the crypto exchange community has acted upon to flag and freeze the hacked coins as soon as possible. Sooner or later, it is going to come in the market and they need to act upon it. The money gets layered and mixed quite soon which would increase the complexity on finding and dealing with such coin so it would be better to stop them soon. It would also make the effort of hackers less profitable and could discourage costly attempts in the future.

[noorman0]

Do you guys agree with this move? Or Tether or anyone shouldn't used their power to freeze even if it comes from hacks or exploits?

The token value is locked in a vault and can be liquidated at will; therefore, expecting them to remain passive in the event of a hack is a pipe dream, especially given the mandate granted to them by the authorities. They possess all the power needed to let down stablecoin users.

[SatsPH]

They might have caught it in time. But there could be a moment wherein they might not freeze it at all as the hackers might have moved it very quick. Of course, it is somewhat controversial as this service can froze anyone's account and that is bad for crypto.

But they could be under pressure for now to do this for the Bitget hack. Otherwise, if they didn't act upon, they will be criticized by the crypto market and there will be more questions on both of them. I wouldn't say it's good, but they did a better job here.