Thorchain is experiencing an exodus developer, because the pirates of the Lazare group use the blockchain focused on interoperability to whiten Ethereum (ETH) stolen in the piracy of Bybit.
A Thorchain developer known as TCB announcement This Pluto, the unofficial lead developer of the protocol, takes off. TCB himself also indicated his imminent departure unless a quick resolution is implemented to prevent illicit flows linked to North Korean actors.
The TCB declaration has highlighted a long -standing fracture between Thorchain’s messaging around the decentralization and the reality of its infrastructure.
According to the developer, the protocol claims to be resistant to censorship and without authorization, but in reality, a small group of corporate actors controls the major part of the network infrastructure and the services oriented towards users. He argued that this The contradiction exposes the protocol to the regulatory examination and threatens its long -term viability.
Thorchain is a protocol without permission focused on interoperability. However, given its characteristic of the exchange of native assets on their respective blockchains, the bad players took advantage of the Thorchain infrastructure to obscure the stolen funds. This is the case following the Hack bybit, which led to a loss of $ 1.5 billion on February 21.
Recently, TCB, Pluto and another developer known as Oleg Petrov used their power as a validators to vote to interrupt the exchanges of Ethchain to prevent the Lazare group from whitening money.
Centralization and limitations of validators
Thorchain’s design choices have contributed to TCB described as an overly centralized network unable to withstand regulatory pressure.
Unlike Ethereum and Bitcoin (BTC), which have thousands of independent validators, Thorchain relies on a group of smaller and closely controlled operators. The network requirement for the complete replication of the infrastructure in all the blockchains supported further complicates the integration of the validator, limiting decentralization.
The efforts to respond to these concerns, including proposals for lighter nodes and a set of enlarged validators, were encountered by the Resistance.
While other protocols, such as Chainflip, have quickly implemented censorship measures at the network level, Thorchain has not yet adopted similar strategies, which contradicts industry trends.
Crisis on the horizon
According to TCB, many portfolio suppliers who facilitate most of the volume of non -illegal transactions from Thorchain already apply transactions filtering on their fronts. If Thorchain continues to allow illicit funds to circulate in its network, these providers can break their integrations, more insulating the protocol of legitimate sources of liquidity.
TCB warned that the departure of these providers, combined with a regulatory examination, could lead to a Thorchain crisis. With the main infrastructure and developers suppliers now reconsidering their involvement, the protocol is faced with operational and reputation risks.
The concerns raised reflect broader tensions of the industry between the ideals of decentralization and the realities of compliance with the world’s money laundering frameworks. Thorchain’s potential is involved in the largest flight of cryptography in North Korea increases the issues considerably.
TCB said that when most transaction flows consist of stolen funds linked to a sanctioned state player, the question goes beyond the governance of the protocol and in the national security territory. He added that Thorchain can cope with application measures that could compromise its operations if it is perceived as a duct for money laundering on a large scale.
Mentioned in this article
