bibibi.ccLoading…
The content accuses THORChain it of applying inconsistent standards when blocking stolen transactions, but provides no supporting details.
Decentralization as a shield?THORChain Caught in a “double standard” dispute over whether to block stolen transactions
Instantly halted when hacked, but allegedly laundered others’ stolen funds without hesitation.
Source: https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articles/01a0e20d-8ed0-745a-a649-2030fe090e11
The headline states THORChain that it is caught in a “double standard” dispute over whether to block stolen transactions.
The body states: “Instantly halted when hacked, but allegedly laundered others’ stolen funds without hesitation.”
The content includes a link to a PANews article.
The following is analysis, separate from reported facts. Verify important claims independently.
This content questions THORChain whether handling stolen funds has been inconsistent: the system was halted quickly when it was attacked, yet it is accused of failing to prevent other stolen funds from being circulated. However, the original content contains only a headline, a brief comment, and a link; it provides no account of what happened, transaction records, or response.
If the relevant claims are true, they could prompt users to question whether THORChain security response standards are consistent with the principle of decentralization.
Beginners should treat this as an unverified, disputed claim and should not conclude solely from the headline that the project applies “double standards” or participated in laundering stolen funds.
Loading event timeline…
This term is not in the glossary yet. Browse related concepts in the glossary.
View glossary →This term is not in the glossary yet. Browse related concepts in the glossary.
View glossary →This term is not in the glossary yet. Browse related concepts in the glossary.
View glossary →