"""

New dispute after the Bitget hack

The dispute between THORChain and Bitget in the crypto market deepened after the major security breach on Sept. 24. Following the attack, in which Bitget said it lost about $388 million, around $6 million was reportedly moved into Bitcoin, while THORChain refused to agree to selectively block the attackers’ addresses.

Bitget said the attacker gained access to the system by bypassing the security controls protecting the exchange’s wallets. The company said the vulnerability was identified and closed, but did not publicly provide details on how the attacker gained access.

The exchange also published addresses linked to the attacker and offered a 5% reward for legitimate efforts that help freeze or recover the stolen funds. As the assets moved through different services, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen made a clear weekend appeal to THORChain not to provide services to those addresses.

Why didn’t THORChain stop the transactions?

THORChain replied on Monday by defending the network’s core policy and stressing its principle that everyone should be able to use the protocol. The project team said its emergency network pause mechanism was designed to protect protocol security, not to selectively freeze funds tied to specific addresses.

What do the emergency pause tools cover?

According to the THORChain team, operators have certain controls that can interrupt transactions. However, these tools are network-level measures, not address-based blocks.

  • Settings that can stop swaps across all connected blockchains
  • Activity restrictions covering a specific chain such as Ethereum

Using these options, as described in the project’s documentation, can disrupt not only suspicious activity but also other user transactions on the relevant routes. For that reason, THORChain draws a distinction between an emergency security pause and a request to freeze specific funds.

Key risk issues facing the crypto market

The development has renewed debate over security vulnerabilities at centralized exchanges and the limits of intervention in decentralized networks. The movement of $6 million in assets into Bitcoin and total losses running into the hundreds of millions once again showed how difficult it can be to trace and recover stolen funds across blockchains.

On Bitget’s side, attention is now focused on how much of the funds can be recovered and whether the technical details of the breach will be disclosed. THORChain, meanwhile, is sticking to its position that its existing tools are meant for systemwide security risks, not individual wallet blocking.

"""