Regarding Sui freezing the hacker's funds, the underlying logic directly represents two completely different value systems (of course, one could say it’s easy to be indifferent when the whip hasn’t struck your own backside 😂). Extreme believers in decentralization would argue that public chains must operate like Bitcoin and Ethereum, and that there should be no active intervention under any circumstances, even in cases such as 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 itself is not entirely pure, as evidenced by the previous TheDAO incident.

On the other hand, a faction of pragmatists (let's call them that) believes that some degree of centralization is necessary to act as a judge and intervene in behaviors like hacking, which are inherently wrong and could impact the funds of many users and the security of projects. They are more accepting of appropriate levels of centralization. However, the issue here is not just that impure actions undermine the spirit of decentralization, but more seriously, whether this judge is sufficiently impartial and does not abuse their power.

Additionally, let me say something that might hit hard: almost all debates about spirit and stance, at least 99%, are simply because the whip hasn’t struck their own backside. If one day, the coin you hold gets stolen and goes to zero, and you can still calmly accept it and consider it a contribution to the martyrdom of decentralization, then you are a true believer 😂

So, which faction do you belong to?