The underlying logic of Sui's view on freezing hacker funds directly represents two completely different values (of course, it can also be said that the board didn't hurt me if it didn't hit my butt) 😂）， Extreme decentralized believers will believe that public blockchains must be like Bitcoin and Ethereum, and there should be no active intervention in any way, even if it is something like hacker theft, which may even kill the entire project, it must be fully accepted in accordance with the spirit of decentralization, and no interception of hacker funds can be carried out. Of course, Ethereum is actually not sincere after the TheDAO incident occurred before. Another group of pragmatists (let's call it that) believe that a certain degree of centralization is needed as a judge to intervene in behaviors such as hacking and pen theft, which are already incorrect and may even affect the security of a large number of user funds and projects. They have a high acceptance of appropriate centralization. Of course, the problem here is not only that it pollutes the spirit of decentralization, but more importantly, whether the judge himself is fair enough, rather than giving him the power to start wielding the big stick recklessly. Furthermore, let me say something heart wrenching: at least 99% of all so-called debates about spirit and stance are simply because the board did not hit your own butt. If one day a coin you hold is stolen and goes to zero, and you can accept it calmly and consider it a contribution to decentralized martyrdom, then you are a true believer 😂 So, which faction are you from