The announcement of the CETUS protocol on X that “attackers have stolen approximately $223 million from their liquidity encryption pool” has sparked the loudest governance controversy in SUI’s short-term history. The team wrote that “immediate action has been taken to lock down our contracts to prevent further theft of funds” and guaranteed that “the $162 million in compromise funds have been successfully suspended. … We are working with SUI Foundation and other ecosystem members, currently working with other ecosystem members on NextSep Solutions” and are expected to “all incident reports.”
Sui vulnerability after the outbreak of the crypto community
Those next solutions sparked a philosophical exchange. To get the stolen assets stuck on the chain, the verifier’s super worker agreed to ignore the upcoming transactions from three hacker-controlled addresses. Justin Bons, founder of cyber capital, believes that the behavior of the blacklist shows structural centralization: “Sui’s validators are checking the current TXS reviewing hackers! … Does this concentrate Sui? The short answer is yes? More importantly?” Why? “He cited only 114 validators and founders’ shares, claiming: “The Founder’ owns the majority of the supply, only 114 validators!” ”
Amogh Gupta of the SUI Foundation countered that the move was a legitimate action on distributed governance. “Just because the validator agrees on something, it doesn’t mean they are ‘collusion’. […] Verifiers on other chains can (and) do the same. His decentralization, Ethereum’s Holy Grail did something similar when it blocked the approval of transactions in 2023,” he wrote, later adding that “the key is that this capability is not specific to SUI. OFAC censorship is a gray area […] However, hackers are bad, so there is no dispute about whether it is good or bad. ”
Bons rejected the analogy. “What you know about OFAC regulations in 2023: No ETH TX is under scrutiny because collusion is impossible […] The distribution of power in SUI is so central that it is possible in the first place. “He got into the economics of tokens: “SUI claims a cap of 10B until 2030, ‘unallocated’ 52%. The problem is that more than 8B Sui has been fixed to the wood now! More than 84% of the fixed supply is held by the founder! […] A single party-led consensus is the definition of centralization! ”
Gupta replied that the number of validators was red herring. “NC [Nakamoto coefficient] Literally the only important metric, and the number of validators is the most misleading and playable metric to measure decentralization. I can own 1,000 long-tail validators, but if a person owns more than 33% of the shares, all of this is useless. ” BONS strikes back: “Do you really want to defend the fact that the “founder” controls 80% of the equity? 114 Verifiers are too low and need to be at least above 1K to avoid this type of censorship. ”
The dispute overflowed two crypto protagonists. fabda.eth (@fabdarice) argues that the freeze “again proved that there is only one blockchain suitable for protecting the world economy… there is only one Ethereum and stocks are ETH.” Crypto attorney Gabriel Shapiro responded to this view: “Remember that every smart contract chain except Ethereum is an enterprise blockchain; Sui Hacker switched from Sui to ETH because Ethereum is actually a censored scope.” Influential Crypto Ssebi summarized the reputational blow in more common language: “It looks like Sui was filming on her feet… Ignoring transactions and blocking transactions is something centralized databases can do.”
Voices inside the SUI ecosystem insist that the mechanism is an “emergency brake” rather than an acceptance of hierarchical control. Nefarii.Sui Nefarii.Sui, founder of Suimoveafrica, explained: “In rare large-scale vulnerabilities, like today’s CETUS protocol incident, SUI validators can unite and reach consensus to deny cryptocurrency transactions in specific malicious wallets. This is not an automatic and not a centralized effect. These are two key effects. Efficiency is required both times. He concluded: “SUI is decentralized; the network is secure; the asset recovery tool exists – prudence and consensus.” ”
Currently, this number is conducive to freezing: Cetus said “$162 million in trade-off funds have been successfully suspended”, while the attackers retained about $61 million to $61 million from Ethereum. Whether validator interventions will evolve into conventional protocol functionality or maintain a one-time response is a governance dilemma that SUI must address in the public eye.
At press time, the SUI traded at $3.61.
Featured Images created with dall.e, Charts for TradingView.com
Editing process For Bitcoin experts, focus on thorough research, accurate and impartial content. We adhere to strict procurement standards and each page is diligently evaluated by our top technical experts and experienced editorial team. This process ensures the integrity, relevance and value of our content to our readers.
