Author: @tmel0211
The Sui Foundation successfully froze $160 million in stolen funds, temporarily preventing hackers from further malicious actions. However, under the magnifying glass of public opinion questioning "decentralization," everyone is now focusing on @SuiNetwork Foundation: What exactly do you plan to do with this money? Here are several possibilities:
The Sui Foundation successfully froze $160 million in stolen funds, temporarily preventing hackers from further malicious actions. However, under the magnifying glass of public opinion questioning "decentralization," everyone is now focusing on @SuiNetwork Foundation: What exactly do you plan to do with this money? Here are several possibilities:
Current constraints: $160 million in funds are locked by the deny_list, and any transactions involving the hacker's address will be rejected by validators. To unlock the funds, the following must be done:
1、Whitelist Mechanism (Green Channel): Bypass all security checks through 'transaction_allow_list_skip_all_checks', GitHub PR has been closed, but seems to be an inevitable choice;
2、Hard Fork: Directly modify protocol rules and on-chain state, a last resort with high costs and consequences;
1、Whitelist Mechanism (Green Channel): Bypass all security checks through 'transaction_allow_list_skip_all_checks', GitHub PR has been closed, but seems to be an inevitable choice;
2、Hard Fork: Directly modify protocol rules and on-chain state, a last resort with high costs and consequences;
3、Permanent Freeze: Do nothing, maintain the status quo, Sui completes an accidental "deflation".
Possible Unlocking Scheme Analysis (for reference only):
1) Whitelist Mechanism + Community Governance Voting: Initiate an on-chain governance vote through a democratic process: "Agree to proportionally return frozen funds?" After voting passes, the Sui Foundation will add batch return transactions to the 'transaction_allow_list_skip_all_checks' whitelist, allowing transactions to bypass deny_list restrictions and execute fund transfers;
Possible Unlocking Scheme Analysis (for reference only):
1) Whitelist Mechanism + Community Governance Voting: Initiate an on-chain governance vote through a democratic process: "Agree to proportionally return frozen funds?" After voting passes, the Sui Foundation will add batch return transactions to the 'transaction_allow_list_skip_all_checks' whitelist, allowing transactions to bypass deny_list restrictions and execute fund transfers;
Using this approach, with apparent community endorsement, the foundation can use whitelist super permissions, but SUI token distribution is already centralized, and voting results seem entirely under the foundation's control, thus merely putting a democratic veneer on a centralized action;
2) Pure Whitelist Mechanism Return: Sui Foundation directly adds return transactions to the whitelist, bypassing deny_list, and distributes funds to victims according to established rules.
2) Pure Whitelist Mechanism Return: Sui Foundation directly adds return transactions to the whitelist, bypassing deny_list, and distributes funds to victims according to established rules.
This would make the foundation an de facto "super administrator" and completely destroy Sui's decentralization reputation;
3) Negotiate with Hackers, Proportional Return: Currently, deny_list has blocked the hacker's autonomous capabilities. Even if negotiations succeed, execution power remains with the Sui Foundation, ultimately requiring whitelist mechanism release. Negotiation has no technical significance, and attempting to conceal whitelist actions would be tantamount to covering up the truth with "evil compliance";
4) Hard Fork Directly Modifying State: Release a new client version containing state modifications, directly rewriting asset ownership of frozen addresses at the protocol level, then wait for most validators to agree to upgrade to the new version.
3) Negotiate with Hackers, Proportional Return: Currently, deny_list has blocked the hacker's autonomous capabilities. Even if negotiations succeed, execution power remains with the Sui Foundation, ultimately requiring whitelist mechanism release. Negotiation has no technical significance, and attempting to conceal whitelist actions would be tantamount to covering up the truth with "evil compliance";
4) Hard Fork Directly Modifying State: Release a new client version containing state modifications, directly rewriting asset ownership of frozen addresses at the protocol level, then wait for most validators to agree to upgrade to the new version.
This approach is similar to handling The DAO event in Ethereum's history, potentially risking validator network fragmentation, with a minority potentially persisting with the old chain like ETC. Blockchain's immutability would be forcibly altered. While technically thorough, for a new public chain, it would be playing with fire, especially given today's saturated market environment, unlike the lenient circumstances Ethereum faced in 2016;
5) Whitelist + Third-Party Regulatory Custody: Transfer frozen funds to a neutral institution through the whitelist mechanism, seeking endorsement from authoritative regulators like SEC and CFTC, executing decisions through public hearings.
5) Whitelist + Third-Party Regulatory Custody: Transfer frozen funds to a neutral institution through the whitelist mechanism, seeking endorsement from authoritative regulators like SEC and CFTC, executing decisions through public hearings.
This would make Sui a "model student" of crypto industry compliance. Though it sounds far-fetched, remember that Sui's team's predecessor, Facebook's Libra, was once besieged by regulatory agencies. If Sui handles this centrally, it might again be targeted. Better to proactively surrender than be besieged.
However, this would use political compliance to mask the centralized whitelist mechanism, and still cannot avoid public opinion controversy;
6) Whitelist + DeFi Fund Long-Term Compensation Mechanism: The foundation can develop a new fund management contract, transfer frozen funds to the fund contract through the whitelist, and inject effective revenue through ecological economic activities, allowing users to obtain long-term linear release lock-up benefits;
6) Whitelist + DeFi Fund Long-Term Compensation Mechanism: The foundation can develop a new fund management contract, transfer frozen funds to the fund contract through the whitelist, and inject effective revenue through ecological economic activities, allowing users to obtain long-term linear release lock-up benefits;
The brilliance of this strategy is transforming victims into beneficiaries and turning rights defenders into supporters, silencing meaningless market public opinion based on the principle that only those involved have the right to speak. However, this is merely a complex economic governance plan with significant implementation uncertainties;
7) Maintain Status Quo, Permanent Freeze, Deflation: Abandon the whitelist addition idea, with the foundation taking no additional actions, maintaining the current deny_list status. Frozen assets will forever be unable to circulate, equivalent to SUI asset "deflation".
8) Time Difference Arbitrage Strategy: Long-term shelving of frozen fund issues, secretly accumulating when market confidence is lost and token price drops, then suddenly announcing full compensation at the optimal moment. Can delay using technical complexity, governance difficulties, and legal compliance as reasons, while simultaneously exploiting market despair to buy large amounts of $SUI tokens at low prices, waiting for the next cycle or market-appropriate timing to make a one-time full compensation on the original deflationary basis;
7) Maintain Status Quo, Permanent Freeze, Deflation: Abandon the whitelist addition idea, with the foundation taking no additional actions, maintaining the current deny_list status. Frozen assets will forever be unable to circulate, equivalent to SUI asset "deflation".
8) Time Difference Arbitrage Strategy: Long-term shelving of frozen fund issues, secretly accumulating when market confidence is lost and token price drops, then suddenly announcing full compensation at the optimal moment. Can delay using technical complexity, governance difficulties, and legal compliance as reasons, while simultaneously exploiting market despair to buy large amounts of $SUI tokens at low prices, waiting for the next cycle or market-appropriate timing to make a one-time full compensation on the original deflationary basis;
End.
Note: The above possibility analysis is merely speculative discussion. Await the Sui Foundation's final solution disclosure, or potentially better strategies. Everyone is welcome to "brainstorm" in the comments section.
