THORChain @THORChain This response feels a bit off and kind of like an attempt to change the subject. Decentralization is about who holds the power. It doesn’t mean that once power is distributed, we no longer need to discuss responsibility. You’ve just turned the middleman into a group of people. The intermediary layer still exists, so don’t use full decentralization as an excuse. Star @star_okx made a point that explains it better: Distributing an intermediary does not eliminate the intermediary. THORChain is, of course, a decentralized protocol, but directly comparing itself to BTC or ETH isn’t entirely accurate. BTC/ETH nodes maintain the underlying consensus; THORChain validators, on the other hand, collectively hold the signing authority for underlying assets via TSS Vault. Plus, the protocol itself has mechanisms to pause trades and halt signatures. I think we shouldn’t avoid discussing this issue, and THORChain shouldn’t use the banner of decentralization to steer the conversation elsewhere. We’re focusing on one core topic: When a decentralized protocol has collective intervention capabilities, under what circumstances should those capabilities be used to address clearly marked stolen funds? Decentralization can distribute power, but it doesn’t automatically eliminate responsibility. This is a topic that everyone in the industry should seriously reflect on! Because even if this BG incident doesn’t involve you today, there’s a high chance something similar will affect you in the future. Star’s final statement really hit the nail on the head: Distributing the middleman doesn’t mean the middleman ceases to exist.