Decentralization has never been just 'three simple words'

An interesting topic, every time there is a hacker attack on a platform, if the platform exhibits 'centralized operations', it will be attacked.

Every time there is a discussion about 'centralization versus decentralization'.

Little do they know, in the end, it is still a matter of 'the tail wagging the dog'.

Just like after the last 'centralized operation' by @HyperliquidX, a bunch of people left in disappointment, and Fud $HYPE went to 0, yet it ended up increasing to an ATH.

Just like after the large-scale theft at @CetusProtocol, @SuiNetwork directly shut down the chain, and everyone began to question its 'decentralization';

Just like the huge issuance of $BNB that was staked into @VenusProtocol, the halted operations, everyone is also discussing the issue of 'single-chain'.

This raises a question, who can solve the 'hacker' problem?

Can decentralization solve it?

How can we use decentralization to sanction hackers? This question inevitably arises.

Should everyone vote to sanction, or is there some other way?

The conclusion reached in the end is that the only way to sanction hackers is through centralized methods, ultimately returning to the essence of using centralized means to address the issue.

When someone pulls out a knife, it doesn’t work to reason with them.

As the saying goes, a scholar meeting a soldier cannot make sense.

So most of the time, like human nature, don’t just stand there speaking without feeling the pain, the victims all want to roll back data, they all want @CetusProtocol to compensate, and preferably @SuiNetwork to take responsibility as well. 😮‍💨