Regarding Sui freezing the hacker's funds, the underlying logic directly represents two completely different value systems (of course, one could also say that if the stick hasn't hit your own backside, you don't feel the pain 😂). Extreme decentralization believers think that public chains must be like Bitcoin and Ethereum, and there should never be any active intervention, regardless of the situation, even in the case of hackers stealing coins, which could potentially ruin the entire project. They must fully accept this due to the spirit of decentralization and cannot take any action to intercept the hacker's funds. Of course, Ethereum is not completely decentralized since there was the TheDAO incident before.

On the other hand, another group of pragmatists (let's call them that) believes that a certain level of centralization is needed as an arbiter to intervene in inherently incorrect actions like hackers stealing funds, which could also affect the funds of many users and the security of the project. They are more accepting of appropriate centralization. However, the issue here, aside from the fact that centralization contaminates the spirit of decentralization, is whether this arbiter is sufficiently impartial and does not abuse its power to swing the big stick recklessly. #比特币突破11万美元