Furious debate about THORChain vs NEAR shows idealism has limits
60-second summary
The debate ignites over Bitget’s $387.7 million hacked loss, pitting “permissionless, decentralized” ideals against practical intervention; some argue any rescue violates core principles, while others claim protecting users justifies limited action. This clash highlights growing tension between ideological purity and market stability, suggesting future governance frameworks may evolve to balance security with decentralization.
The furious debate over Bitget’s $387.7M of hacked funds comes down to whether ideals around “permissionless and decentralized” tech means never intervening — even if you could.