THORChain Faces Fresh Pressure Over Bitget Hacker Fund Flows
THORChain is facing renewed scrutiny after funds linked to the Bitget breach moved through its cross-chain infrastructure, reviving questions about how decentralized protocols should handle known stolen assets. Bitget initially estimated the breach at $351.6 million before later raising the figure to $387.5 million. CoinDesk reported that the exchange said its user funds and cold wallets remained secure.
Bitget CEO Gracy Chen has publicly asked THORChain to refuse service to addresses linked to the attacker. Chen argued that decentralization should not become a shield for moving known stolen funds and said the industry was watching THORChain’s response.
THORChain’s Decentralized Model Faces Scrutiny
The dispute centers on THORChain’s permissionless design. The network enables users to swap native assets across blockchains without relying on a centralized intermediary. That structure also makes direct intervention against individual addresses more difficult.
Blockchain tracing has identified portions of the Bitget proceeds moving through THORChain before conversion into Bitcoin. TRM Labs said some stolen assets moved through the network after passing through intermediary wallets. Other cross-chain services also appeared in the laundering path.
The episode echoes earlier controversy surrounding THORChain after the 2025 Bybit hack. The network faced pressure to restrict transactions involving funds attributed to North Korean-linked attackers. However, its decentralized governance structure became central to the debate over whether validators should intervene.
Security and Recovery Pressure Mounts
The Bitget incident has also highlighted the different recovery tools available across crypto networks. Circle and Tether froze about $318,000 in stablecoins held by an attacker-linked wallet, while large amounts of ETH and other assets remained outside issuer-controlled freeze mechanisms. CoinDesk reported that more than 63,000 ETH remained in exploiter addresses that issuers could not freeze.
For THORChain, the dispute places decentralization, censorship resistance and responsibility for illicit fund flows in direct tension. The outcome could influence how exchanges, regulators and other decentralized networks assess cross-chain infrastructure when stolen assets pass through permissionless systems.
