Fascinating how different chains responded differently to the $128M @Balancer hack.
Berachain had validators halt the network (Balancer very tightly integrated into their ecosystem).
Polygon validators censoring hacker's transactions to freeze them in place.
Sonic added functionality to freeze & 0 out hacker's account.
TBH, I think these are mostly good answers. Smaller ecosystems should prioritize safety and community protection over "code is law."
To understand why all the $S in the hacker wallet is set to a ZERO, I took a look at @SonicLabs official github (link in comment).
It is the newly implemented security policy where the foundation has authority to freeze a certain wallet account. There is a new smart contract written 2 hours ago with a 'freeze method'.
This policy happens at the native chain layer. I only affects native $S, but not other ERC20 tokens. That is why $stS and others still remain. Can anything be changed afterwards? I don't know.
here is the new function added.
Many people crowing that this proves nothing is decentralized. That's wrong. You can agree to freeze accounts in a decentralized system.
Decentralization just means there are a lot of parties. But if enough of those parties agree, then you can agree to do anything.
The critique you're looking for is around "immutability," not "decentralization."
@RyanSAdams @Balancer If a single party was freezing transactions, that's a failure of decentralization.
If everyone agrees that we should freeze this transaction, then that's decentralization working toward mutability.
15.89萬
558
本頁面內容由第三方提供。除非另有說明，OKX 不是所引用文章的作者，也不對此類材料主張任何版權。該內容僅供參考，並不代表 OKX 觀點，不作為任何形式的認可，也不應被視為投資建議或購買或出售數字資產的招攬。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情況下，此類人工智能生成的內容可能不準確或不一致。請閱讀鏈接文章，瞭解更多詳情和信息。OKX 不對第三方網站上的內容負責。包含穩定幣、NFTs 等在內的數字資產涉及較高程度的風險，其價值可能會產生較大波動。請根據自身財務狀況，仔細考慮交易或持有數字資產是否適合您。