NEAR Intents says it blocked $50M in transfers tied to Bitget hackers
In brief
- Bitget lost $387.5 million to attackers, according to Cointelegraph.
- NEAR Intents says SHIELD blocked over $50 million in attempted transfers, which went to other providers.
- NEAR Intents froze $503,000; about $166,000 in suspected stolen funds passed through.
- NEAR Intents is forgoing Bitget's 5% freeze bounty and 5% recovery bounty.
- THORChain says it doesn't censor by design after Bitget's CEO asked it to block addresses.
What NEAR Intents says it stopped
According to NEAR Intents general manager Alex Shevchenko, a significant portion of the stolen funds moved across chains to Ethereum. In a post, NEAR Intents said its SHIELD system detected and blocked more than $50 million in attempted transfers. That number is the protocol's own figure.
Blocking isn't the same as recovering.
Shevchenko said those blocked transfers then went to other providers, so the funds kept moving (just not through NEAR Intents). What the protocol actually held is far smaller: it froze $503,000 during execution, while about $166,000 in suspected stolen funds passed through.
Shevchenko said the frozen funds would be returned through an appropriate legal process. NEAR Intents also said it's forgoing the 5% bounty Bitget offered for freezing attacker funds, plus an additional 5% for recovery, so more can go back to Bitget. Bitget's CEO has said the hack exploited a third-party security vulnerability (a related Cointelegraph headline puts the total at $388 million).
Permissionless doesn't mean neutral, Shevchenko argues
Shevchenko argued that permissionless systems don't necessarily have to be neutral, and said NEAR Intents would actively fight the laundering of hacked funds. He framed it as a choice made by builders:
"The people who build these systems make choices about what those protocols enable. Refusing to help launder stolen assets is one of ours"
THORChain holds a different line
NEAR Intents' post came as THORChain faced calls to block addresses linked to the attack. Bitget CEO Gracy Chen called on THORChain to refuse services to those addresses.
THORChain's answer? It doesn't censor by design. The protocol said that while it has halted its network in the past, that was an emergency security mechanism affecting the protocol broadly, and it "is not a selective freeze of specific funds or an individual swap." In THORChain's view, pausing the whole network for security is different from picking out particular funds or swaps to stop.
Stablecoin issuers also stepped in. Circle and Tether blacklisted a wallet linked to the Bitget exploiter, freezing $318,013 of USDT and USDC, according to onchain data.
Frequently asked questions
How much of the Bitget hack money did NEAR Intents actually freeze?
NEAR Intents froze $503,000 in funds during execution, while about $166,000 in suspected stolen funds passed through. It says it blocked more than $50 million in attempted transfers, but those transfers then went to other providers.
Why won't THORChain block addresses linked to the Bitget hack?
THORChain says it doesn't censor by design. It said past network halts were an emergency security mechanism affecting the whole protocol, not a selective freeze of specific funds. Bitget CEO Gracy Chen had asked it to refuse services to addresses linked to the attack.
