Sui Network validators freezing stolen funds sparks Decentralization controversy

Recently, after a hacking attack on a trading platform, Sui network validators took coordinated action to "freeze" the hacker's address, recovering approximately $160 million in funds. This move sparked doubts and discussions within the industry regarding the level of decentralization of the Sui network.

From a technical perspective, after a successful hacker attack, some funds were transferred to other blockchains through cross-chain bridges, and this portion cannot be recovered. However, a considerable amount of stolen funds still remains on the Sui chain, becoming the target of "frozen" validators.

Validators achieve "freezing" by directly ignoring transactions from hacker addresses during the transaction pool stage. These transactions, while technically valid, will not be included in a block, resulting in the hacker's funds being "house arrested" in the address. The object model features of the Move language make this "freezing" possible, as asset transfers must be completed through on-chain transactions.

This practice is equivalent to a hacker having a bank card, but all ATMs refuse service. The stolen funds are effectively in a "destroyed" state, which may objectively create a deflationary effect.

However, this incident also exposed the issue of excessive centralization of validators in the Sui network. A small number of nodes can control key decisions across the entire network, which is not only a problem for Sui but also a common challenge faced by most PoS networks.

What is more concerning is that the Sui officials stated they would return the frozen funds, which further raises doubts about its Decentralization characteristics. Is there a super permission at the system level that can directly modify asset ownership? This requires the officials to provide more detailed explanations.

This incident has sparked discussions about the trade-offs of Decentralization. While users do not want their funds to fall into the hands of hackers, the subjectivity of the "freezing" action and the lack of clear standards also raise concerns in the market. Who will be frozen today and who might be frozen tomorrow? This precedent could undermine the censorship-resistant value of public chains and affect user trust.

Decentralization is not black and white. Sui has chosen to seek a balance between user protection and decentralization, but the key lies in the lack of transparent governance mechanisms and clear boundary standards. Currently, most blockchain projects are making similar trade-offs, but users have the right to know the truth and should not be misled by the label of "fully decentralized."