THORChain Pushes Back on Bitget’s Demand to Block Hacker Addresses

THORChain rejected a request from crypto exchange Bitget to block certain addresses it had flagged as associated with a hacker. After Bitget's request, one of the flagged addresses executed an XRP-to-bitcoin swap on THORChain, and OKX executive Star Xu publicly disputed THORChain's analogy comparing its network to Bitcoin.

By AI Newsroom· Reviewed by Pranav, Founder & Editor-in-ChiefPublished about 1 hour agoUpdated about 1 hour ago0 views

Why It Matters

The incident highlights tensions between centralized exchanges seeking to curb illicit funds and decentralized protocols that resist address censorship, raising questions about how cross-chain networks handle compliance demands. Public disagreement between industry figures underscores differing views on censorship, custody, and decentralized system design.

Key Facts

Protocol: THORChain
Exchange requesting blocks: Bitget
Action taken by flagged address: Completed an XRP-to-bitcoin swap after Bitget's request
Other party challenging THORChain: Star Xu of OKX
Dispute subject: THORChain's comparison of itself to Bitcoin

THORChain publicly pushed back against a demand from crypto exchange Bitget to block addresses Bitget identified as linked to a hacker. Rather than complying with the exchange's request, THORChain maintained its stance against censoring addresses on its cross-chain network.

Following Bitget's call to block the addresses, one address flagged by the exchange proceeded to execute an XRP-to-bitcoin swap through THORChain. The swap occurred after Bitget's request was made public, illustrating the protocol's continued processing of transactions involving the flagged address.

The situation drew further attention when Star Xu, founder of crypto exchange OKX, challenged THORChain's comparison of its censorship resistance to that of Bitcoin. Xu's comments signaled disagreement among industry participants about how decentralized protocols should respond to requests from centralized platforms aiming to restrict access to suspected illicit funds.

The episode highlights ongoing frictions between centralized exchanges, which have regulatory and compliance incentives to block tainted addresses, and decentralized infrastructure projects that prioritize permissionless transaction flow. The public exchange of views among THORChain, Bitget, and OKX figures underscores the unresolved debate over the appropriate balance between anti-abuse measures and decentralized principles in cross-chain systems.