Sui's validator coordination was a concerning sign of centralization

Opposing arguments

Blockchain participants have a fundamental duty to intervene against illicit activity, a responsibility grounded in long-standing legal principles, even if not explicitly stated in writing

A project’s decision not to intervene in the face of malicious activity may expose it to legal liability and ethical scrutiny

Validators are supposed to operate in a semi-custodial role, forming an implicit trust agreement with users of the network

Related projects

Related topics

Supporting arguments

The decision to freeze $162 million in hacked assets on Sui was made by a subset of validators without prior approval from token holders, DAO members, or any formalized community process

The ability of Sui validators to censor specific addresses in the wake of the Cetus exploit set a precedent that challenges the foundational premise of permissionless blockchains, raising the risk that discretionary censorship may become normalized regardless of justification

Unlocking the frozen funds requires an on-chain vote, but the centralized distribution of SUI tokens may influence the outcome, potentially limiting the effectiveness of decentralized decision-making.