In the blockchain world, decentralization has always been regarded as one of its core values.
However, a recent incident on the Sui chain has raised questions about this value.
Sui officials announced that after @CetusProtocol was attacked by hackers, they successfully 'froze' the hacker's address through coordination of the validator network, recovering funds worth $160 million.
This move has sparked discussions about whether Sui's decentralization is a 'lie'.
This article will analyze from a technical perspective how Sui achieves this 'freeze' and its impact on the concept of decentralization.
1. Hacker Attacks and Fund Transfers
After the hacker successfully attacked, part of the funds was transferred to other chains like Ethereum through cross-chain bridges, and these funds can no longer be retrieved because once they leave the Sui ecosystem, the validators are powerless.
However, a considerable amount of stolen funds remains in the hacker-controlled Sui address, and these funds have become targets for 'freezing'.
The 'freeze' mechanism of the validator network
According to official announcements, Sui's validator network collectively ignores transactions from addresses identified as containing stolen funds. This 'freeze' mechanism primarily relies on the following two technical aspects:
Transaction filtering at the validator level:
Validators directly ignore transactions from the hacker's address during the transaction pool (mempool) stage.
These transactions are technically fully valid, but the validators chose not to package them on-chain, resulting in the hacker's funds being 'under house arrest' in the address.
Key mechanisms of the Move object model:
The object model of the Move language requires asset transfers to be on-chain.
So although the hacker controls a significant amount of assets in the Sui address, to transfer these objects, a transaction must be initiated and confirmed by the validators.
"Validators refusing to package means objects cannot be used"
This mechanism is similar to having a bank card, but all ATMs refuse to serve you.
"Funds are in the account but cannot be withdrawn"
Through continuous monitoring and interference from validators, the assets in the hacker's address cannot circulate, which objectively plays a 'deflationary' role.
2. The Challenges of Decentralization
The rapid coordination of Sui's validator network indicates that its power distribution is still overly centralized.
A small number of nodes can control key decisions across the network; this issue is not only present in Sui but is also common in other PoS chains, such as Ethereum and BSC.
This incident in Sui has particularly highlighted the issue of validator centralization.
The return of frozen funds and doubts about decentralization
Sui officials stated that they would return frozen funds to the pool, but if the validators refuse to package the transaction, these funds should theoretically remain inaccessible forever.
"This raises further challenges to the decentralization characteristics of Sui"
Are there system-level super permissions that can directly modify asset ownership?
This issue requires Sui to further disclose the specific details of the 'freeze'.
The trade-off of decentralization and user protection
In blockchain projects, decentralization is not a black-and-white choice.
Sui has chosen a specific balance point between user protection and decentralization.
Emergency response interference, sacrificing some decentralization may not be a bad thing, but the key lies in the lack of transparent governance mechanisms and clear boundary standards.
Conclusion: Establishing transparent governance mechanisms is key to maintaining user trust
The Sui incident reveals the complexity of the decentralization concept in practical applications.
Users have the right to understand the true operational mechanisms of the project, rather than being misled by the label of 'fully decentralized'.
Blockchain projects, when weighing decentralization against user protection, should strive to establish transparent governance mechanisms to maintain user trust and the project's core values.