Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
CFD
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
GateRouter
Smartly choose from 40+ AI models, with 0% extra fees
You probably haven't been following this thing about Arbitrum DAO lately, but it's turning into a real legal headache. Imagine: the Arbitrum Security Council froze 30,765 ETH after last month's rsETH exploit, and now a lawyer is coming into forums saying that no one can touch these funds. Why? Because he considers them property belonging to North Korea.
Yeah, you read that right. Lawyer Charles Gerstein represents victims of North Korean terrorism dating back decades. We're talking about the Lod Airport massacre in 1972, the kidnapping of Rev. Kim Dong Shik in 2000, and the Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006. The plaintiffs won their cases, but North Korea never paid. The judgments total around $877 million.
The legal theory is surprisingly coherent: since U.S. authorities linked the Lazarus Group (responsible for the exploit) to the North Korean state, these 30,765 ETH frozen would technically be North Korean property. So, under U.S. law, these funds could be seized to pay off unpaid judgments against North Korea.
But here’s the really complicated part. On one side, you have Aave depositors whose positions are locked and who are just waiting to recover their stolen money. On the other, you have families waiting for decades to get justice for terrorist acts. It’s a choice between victims, and there’s no right answer.
Some Arbitrum delegates argue that the ETH is stolen property that should be returned to the original rsETH holders. Others raised questions about insurance coverage and potential delegate liability. Now, with this notice of restraint under New York law, the situation becomes even more delicate. If the court accepts Gerstein’s theory, delegates who approve the transfer of funds could be exposed to contempt of court.
This is the kind of situation that shows how decentralized governance meets traditional legal reality. A DAO has no clear legal status, so the risk falls on whoever the court ultimately decides has control over these frozen ETH. And it could be any delegate who votes for releasing the funds.
What really strikes me is that no one chose this situation. The victims of the rsETH exploit did nothing wrong. The families of North Korean terrorism victims have been waiting for years. And Arbitrum DAO finds itself caught in the middle, with an impossible choice to make.