Arbitrum officially announced that they’ve urgently frozen the 30,766 ETH held by the hacker who attacked KelpDAO. The comment section is full of criticism. When it comes to whether or not to freeze the stolen funds on-chain, no matter what decision is made, it’s impossible to satisfy everyone—because spectators can never truly empathize with those who were robbed. Not freezing = doing nothing; freezing = violating decentralization principles (if hackers can be frozen today, others could be frozen tomorrow). With the development of crypto up to now, I personally think there’s no need to view decentralization in an overly dogmatic way. The purpose of decentralization is to resist authoritarian power and serve the general public. So, if centralization is aimed at helping the public rather than benefiting authoritarian interests, I believe this kind of centralization is worth advocating for. In a way, freezing the hacker is an example of this kind of centralization.