Near Intents, the cross-chain swap service, blocked more than $50 million in attempted transactions tied to a Bitget hacker, raising fresh questions about how "permissionless" the platform truly is.
What Happened
Near Intents identified and rejected over $50 million in suspicious transfers linked to a hacker who had targeted the crypto exchange Bitget. The swap service flagged the attempted movements and refused to process them, marking a significant intervention against illicit fund flows.
However, the effectiveness of that block proved limited. Most of the rejected funds were subsequently rerouted through other swap providers, allowing the attacker to continue moving assets despite the intervention.
Blocking bad actors on one platform means little if the same funds simply flow through the next open door.
The Permissionless Question
The incident has reignited debate over the meaning of "permissionless" in decentralized finance. Near Intents markets itself as an open cross-chain protocol, yet its decision to reject transactions tied to the Bitget hacker demonstrates that the service retains the ability to intervene and filter certain transfers.
Critics argue that such interventions, while beneficial in combating theft, contradict the ideal of a truly permissionless system where no central authority can censor transactions. Supporters counter that voluntary compliance measures are increasingly necessary as regulators and law enforcement scrutinize crypto infrastructure used to launder stolen funds.
The episode underscores a persistent challenge in the industry:
- Blocking illicit funds at a single point rarely stops determined attackers
- Other providers can absorb rejected transactions, undermining enforcement
- Balancing censorship resistance with anti-money-laundering demands remains unresolved
Broader Implications
As exchanges continue to fall victim to large-scale hacks, the pressure on swap services and bridges to police fund flows is likely to intensify. The Bitget case illustrates both the reach and the limits of individual platforms acting alone, suggesting that coordinated industry efforts may be needed to meaningfully curb stolen crypto from being laundered across the ecosystem.