Cross-chain swap service NEAR Intents has blocked more than $50 million in attempted transactions linked to the massive $388 million breach of the Bitget exchange, according to a report published by the protocol’s general manager, Alex Shevchenko, as reported by CoinDesk. The intervention has ignited a fierce industry debate over protocol neutrality and whether a system capable of freezing funds can truly call itself permissionless.
According to CoinDesk, the protocol’s automated security mechanism, known as SHIELD, successfully intercepted and froze about $503,000 mid-transaction. An additional $166,000 managed to pass through the protocol before filters caught up, while the vast majority of the $50 million figure represented rejected transfer attempts that subsequently sought out alternative laundering routes across other DeFi providers.
The decision to halt illicit funds has drawn sharp criticism from industry engineers who argue that protocol intervention undermines the core tenets of decentralized finance. Vini Barbosa, a technical writer and documentation engineer at Ramp Labs, criticized the move on X, noting that true permissionless architecture must remain entirely neutral to preserve user sovereignty against potential government overreach and censorship.
In contrast, NEAR co-founder Illia Polosukhin defended the protocol’s actions, clarifying on X that while users maintain absolute ownership to transfer assets and deploy contracts directly on the NEAR blockchain, individual applications and liquidity providers retain the right to choose which transactions they process.
Diverging Approaches Across DeFi Protocols
The security approach adopted by NEAR Intents stands in direct contrast to other cross-chain liquidity providers. Most notably, cross-chain network THORChain has explicitly refused requests from Bitget to block attacker-controlled addresses, arguing that emergency shutdown controls and censorship resistance must protect protocol integrity rather than selectively target specific funds. Meanwhile, blockchain security efforts continue to widen, with stablecoin issuers Circle and Tether having previously frozen roughly $320,000 in stablecoins tied to the September 24 breach.
Cryptorank noted that other protocols like Chainflip have similarly turned away illicit flows as hackers scramble to find new laundering routes. Shevchenko stated that the restricted funds on NEAR Intents will remain frozen pending formal legal and law-enforcement proceedings, though the protocol has not yet clarified the precise mechanisms for how wrongly flagged users can appeal or recover mistakenly blocked assets.
Follow-up Questions
How can wrongly flagged users recover their frozen assets?
NEAR Intents has stated that restricted funds will remain on hold pending legal and recovery proceedings, but has not yet detailed an appeal process for mistakenly flagged accounts
The underlying reporting is available from coindesk.com.
What remains unclear: The exact mechanism or timeline for innocent users to clear false-positive blocks remains unspecified
Will other cross-chain protocols adopt similar freezing mechanisms?
While protocols like Chainflip have joined in turning away hacked funds, platforms like THORChain continue to prioritize complete transaction neutrality over targeted blocking
What remains unclear: It is unclear whether regulatory pressures will eventually force all DeFi liquidity providers to implement mandatory transaction screening
Perspectives
NEAR Intents’ perspective vs Protocol purists’ view
Story lens
NEAR Intents’ perspective
NEAR Intents frames its SHIELD security intervention as a necessary defense against illicit money laundering. By actively intercepting compromised capital, the protocol signals that decentralization should not act as a safe haven for criminal activity, though it risks alienating strict purists who demand absolute transaction neutrality
Protocol purists’ view
Engineers and decentralized finance advocates warn that embedding freeze capabilities into cross-chain protocols creates dangerous regulatory precedents. If liquidity providers can selectively halt transfers, the underlying infrastructure loses its censorship-resistant properties, potentially exposing everyday users to arbitrary financial blockades
AS Roma has officially blocked Paulo Dybala and Nahuel Molina from traveling to Argentina for Lionel Messi’s farewell game due to strict logistical concerns.
NEAR Intents blocked transfers linked to a $388 million Bitget hack, sparking debate over whether protocols can intervene while maintaining a permissionless model.
Yerevan court prepares to hear a defamation case involving National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan and citizen Samvel Ashotyan amid broader concerns over SLAPP suits.
