ME News reports on April 18th, responding to Neeraj K. Agrawal's claim that requesting Circle to act as the crypto world's police is unlikely to improve DeFi security, ZachXBT stated that equating real-time freezing of stablecoins with DeFi security is inaccurate because publicly traded companies and centralized stablecoin issuers are not part of DeFi. He mentioned a case involving approximately $230 million in illegal funds being laundered over six hours, noting that poor infrastructure and lack of compliance are prime examples, and criticized the slow legal procedures that oppress victims, emphasizing that Circle should not switch between centralized and decentralized interests for its own benefit.

MeNews

2026-05-27 02:35:03

Abstract generation in progress

ME News Report, April 18 (UTC+8), in response to Neeraj K. Agrawal's statement that "asking Circle to act as the police of the crypto world does not enhance DeFi security," on-chain investigator ZachXBT responded that it is inaccurate to conflate "whether stablecoin issuers should freeze assets in real-time" with "DeFi security," because publicly traded companies and centralized stablecoin issuers are not part of DeFi. ZachXBT stated that in a "clear and definite" case, approximately $230 million in illegal funds were laundered within six hours; if the relevant infrastructure and customer compliance are inadequate, this is an extremely poor example. He also criticized the inefficiency of using legal procedures to pressure victims instead of establishing real-time response mechanisms, and said that Circle should not selectively switch between "centralized" and "decentralized" based on its own interests. (Source: MLion)

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
8
Repost
Share

Comment

Add a comment

PatchNotes

· 11h ago

If this case had been compliant and useful, it would have been recovered early; the problem is not with the tool at all.

View OriginalReply0

TokenTinkerTao

· 14h ago

The way Circle jumps side to side is a bit hard to hold.

View OriginalReply0

WatchingWhalesUnderTheNeon

· 14h ago

236 million washed out in 6 hours, this infrastructure is indeed weak.

View OriginalReply0

ForgotEverythingAfterMinting

· 14h ago

Neeraj’s proposal sounds like letting Alipay handle Uniswap—it doesn’t really make sense.

View OriginalReply0

MildRugAllergy

· 14h ago

Centralized issuers just want to ride on the coattails of decentralization; it's all driven by profit.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-470bc925

· 14h ago

Inefficient legal procedures make victims pay the price; this cycle is all too familiar.

View OriginalReply0

ASolitaryRockBeforeTheVolcano

· 14h ago

Public companies can't be the police of DeFi; these two are not even in the same track.

View OriginalReply0

ColdBrewYield

· 14h ago

ZachXBT makes a valid point; tying frozen stablecoins to DeFi security indeed involves a conceptual misrepresentation.

View OriginalReply0

Trending Topics
View More
#
StockTradingChallengeUpTo17000U
16.01M Popularity
#
TrumpBacksCFTCAuthorityOverPredictionMarkets
828.01K Popularity
#
GatePredictionMarketAddsSmartMoneyTracking
12.95M Popularity
#
MicronMarketCapBreaks1Trillion
41.75K Popularity
#
TradeCFDWinGold
3.08M Popularity

Pinned

Sitemap

ZachXBT states that the issue of stablecoin issuers freezing funds in real-time should not be confused with DeFi security.

Trending Topics

StockTradingChallengeUpTo17000U

TrumpBacksCFTCAuthorityOverPredictionMarkets

GatePredictionMarketAddsSmartMoneyTracking

MicronMarketCapBreaks1Trillion

TradeCFDWinGold

Pinned