NEAR won a win thoroughly this time: the same batch of Bitget hacker funds, it chose to block, THORChain chose to release!!! After Bitget was stolen for approximately $387.5 million, hackers attempted to launder over $50 million into NEAR Intents. As a result, NEAR's SHIELD automatically identified risks, and only $166000 was actually approved in the end. Another $503000 was frozen during the execution process, and the remaining large number of transactions did not even receive quotes or execution opportunities. I give NEAR a thumbs up from the bottom of my heart on this matter. Let's take a look at THORChain who has been scolded so badly these past few days. Bitget has publicly released hacker addresses and requested THORChain to refuse these addresses for further redemption, but THORChain refused. On September 28th, the associated address exchanged approximately 2390 ETH for 75.2 BTC, worth about 6.3 million US dollars, through THORChain. The logic given by THORChain is roughly: We cannot review transactions just because of funding issues, otherwise Bitcoin and Ethereum will also have to stop when they encounter hacker funds? But I think this analogy is ridiculous. Bitcoin and Ethereum are underlying public chains, while THORChain is a protocol that provides cross chain exchange services. The roles they play are fundamentally different. Moreover, when THORChain was hacked for about $10.7 million in May this year, the automatic mechanism and node governance shut down the entire network within about two hours, and it lasted for a full five weeks. It's your turn to have your money stolen, you can stop. It's someone else's turn to steal $387.5 million, and hackers are using your protocol to exchange for BTC that is harder to track and freeze, but suddenly start talking about censorship resistance. I don't accept this logic. Although THORChain currently does not have a precise freeze button like USDT's ability to block addresses. But the technical architecture is designed by humans, and the rules are also determined by humans. If a protocol discovers that its infrastructure is being used on a large scale by clearly marked hackers to transfer stolen money, and only one sentence remains: permissionless, then permissionless is almost played as a disclaimer. NEAR gave me a more favorable answer this time: Decentralization does not necessarily mean providing liquidity to thieves. If property rights are worth protecting, the stolen property rights are also worth protecting. Rules are dead, people are his mother alive. Your original intention in establishing infrastructure is to serve users, not to give hackers a smoother money laundering highway.