NEAR Intents said it blocked $50 million in funds linked to the Bitget hackers, according to Cointelegraph. The cross-chain protocol's action contrasts with THORChain's stated policy of not selectively censoring transactions.
Disclaimer: News content is based on public news sources and provided for information only. It does not constitute investment advice.
NEAR Intents, a cross-chain protocol, announced that it blocked $50 million connected to the hackers behind the Bitget incident. The protocol said it actively works to prevent stolen funds from being laundered through its system. That statement makes the block a deliberate policy action rather than an incidental network failure. The specific $50 million figure indicates the intervention involved a material amount of assets tied to a single exchange-related security event. The move also signals that some cross-chain services are willing to intervene when flagged funds attempt to move.
Stolen crypto assets are often moved across multiple blockchains to distance them from the original theft. Cross-chain protocols serve as bridges or swap layers that let users exchange assets between networks. If a protocol blocks a transaction, it can cut off one path for those assets to be converted or transferred. NEAR Intents said its action was aimed specifically at preventing laundering, which points to screening at the transaction level. The effectiveness of such a block depends on how much of the $50 million was routed through NEAR Intents rather than other services.
The report draws a contrast with THORChain, which has maintained that it does not selectively censor transactions. That position reflects a broader ideological split in decentralized finance between censorship resistance and active risk controls. NEAR Intents, by blocking the $50 million, is effectively choosing intervention over neutrality in this case. For users and developers, the difference can matter when choosing which cross-chain infrastructure to rely on. The contrast also highlights that not all cross-chain protocols follow the same enforcement model.
The incident adds to a longer-running debate over how decentralized infrastructure should handle illicit funds. Exchanges, bridges, and cross-chain services face pressure from regulators, law enforcement, and users to screen assets linked to hacks. Some protocols argue that any selective blocking undermines credible neutrality; others say preventing laundering is necessary for ecosystem health. NEAR Intents' $50 million block provides a concrete example of the interventionist approach. It does not resolve the debate, but it shows how the two models can produce different outcomes for the same set of funds.
NEAR Intents said it blocked $50 million in funds tied to the Bitget hackers. It described the action as part of an active effort to stop stolen funds from being laundered. The block was reported by Cointelegraph.
Bitget is a cryptocurrency exchange. The original report links the $50 million to hackers associated with Bitget, but it does not provide a full account of the underlying security incident. The mention indicates the funds are tied to an exchange-related theft.
THORChain is cited as a contrast because it has said it does not selectively censor transactions. That means it generally takes a different approach from NEAR Intents on blocking funds tied to hacks. The comparison highlights a policy divide among cross-chain protocols.
A cross-chain protocol helps users move or swap assets between different blockchains. Because it sits between networks, it can become a point where stolen funds are either blocked or allowed to pass. NEAR Intents and THORChain are both examples of cross-chain infrastructure, though they describe different policies on selective blocking.
What NEAR Intents Said
Why Cross-Chain Routes Matter for Stolen Funds
The Contrast With THORChain
What the Block Means for the Wider Market
Open Questions
This article is rewritten from public news sources and further processed by AI. It is provided for information only and does not constitute investment advice — refer to the original source for the authoritative version.
The original report does not detail how the $50 million was identified or when the Bitget hackers attempted to move it. It also does not specify whether NEAR Intents acted alone or in coordination with other services. THORChain's position is referenced as a contrast, but the report does not indicate whether THORChain had any direct involvement in these funds. Those gaps mean the full path of the stolen assets remains unclear. What is clear is the public policy difference between the two protocols.
No, the report only says NEAR Intents blocked $50 million tied to the Bitget hackers. Blocking a transaction route is not the same as recovering assets or returning them to victims. It may prevent those funds from moving through one service, but other routes could still exist.
Some in crypto view selective blocking as censorship because it overrides transaction neutrality. Others see it as a necessary safeguard against money laundering and hack-related flows. The NEAR Intents and THORChain contrast illustrates that disagreement.
