BITGET’S CEO FORMALLY ASKED THORCHAIN TO REFUSE SERVICE TO THE ATTACKER ADDRESSES — THORCHAIN ANSWERED BY ASKING WHAT RESPONSIBILITY BITCOIN BEARS FOR STOLEN FUNDS

Gracy Chen asked a permissionless protocol to stop being one. On 2026-09-26 at 11:44 UTC the Bitget CEO wrote that the attacker addresses are public and tracked, and then: "We are formally asking @THORChain to refuse service to these addresses. Decentralization is a design principle, not a shield for facilitating known stolen funds. The industry is watching."

Six hours and thirty three minutes later THORChain answered. Not with a no. With a question. "THORChain is decentralized and permissionless like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain. What responsibility should Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain bear when handling known stolen funds?"

That is the whole argument in one line, and it is worth sitting with rather than cheering. A chain that can refuse service to an address on request is a chain that can refuse service to yours. The property is not decentralization as a slogan. The property is that no one is standing at the door deciding who gets through. Bitget lost the coins out of its own hot wallets on 2026-09-24 and is now asking someone else's door to close. The door either works for everyone or it is not a door.

Note who is being asked and who is not. Circle and Tether froze about $318,000 on 2026-09-25 because they can, because those are issued balances with an issuer. Nobody asked Bitcoin to freeze anything, because there is nobody to ask. THORChain put itself in the second category out loud. Whether its validators hold that line under pressure is the thing to watch, and last year's Bybit case says the pressure is real. At the time of this writing, bitcoin was $83,488.