📦 @SuiNetwork This matter actually tells us one thing

The so-called blockchain is built on a consensus layer, and this consensus layer determines the validity of all assets in your blockchain. As long as the consensus layer agrees, the blockchain can arbitrarily issue, transfer, or destroy any token balance you have. They can freely agree to block your transaction from being sent.

However, some chains clearly can do this to recover losses, but they just don't, like ZKSync. They clearly have a way to do it, but they just choose not to, and the outcome is self-evident.

In fact, I don't think it's wrong to do so. Consensus is not only about blockchain consensus; it also includes the consensus of retail investors. Everyone says they focus on technology and the underlying layers, but in reality, it is not that important. What matters is the price of the coin, speed, and transaction fees. This is also a form of consensus, so modifying consensus to protect user assets is not also an expansion of consensus and decentralization?

But some chains, even after being hacked, still put up a facade. I can't even be bothered to criticize them; those centralized sequencers can easily shut down, yet they think they are maintaining decentralized dignity. It's just funny to think about.