由于谁可以冻结你的数字美元的重大斗争爆发，加密货币审查制度的抵抗受到质疑

Crypto rhetoric has long prized the ability to transact without gatekeepers, to move value across borders without asking permission, and to hold assets no institution could seize. Crypto culture treated these as design virtues, properties that builders embedded with ethical weight by deliberate architectural choice. Then the Drift exploit happened, and the backlash told a different story. On Apr. 1, Drift suffered a major exploit . Circle later described the publicly reported losses as exceeding $270 million, while other reports put the figure around $285 million and documented criticism that Circle had not frozen stolen USDC as it moved across its cross-chain rails . The attacker routed roughly $232 million in USDC from Solana to Ethereum using Circle's Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol. The backlash stemmed from users and observers wanting to know why Circle had not intervened sooner. Days later, Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino posted that Tether had frozen 3.29 million USDT tied to the Rhea Finance attacker, framing the intervention as proof that “Tether cares.” The contrast landed hard. Related Reading Compromised developers lying dormant within crypto projects risks next major crypto exploit The bigger risk after Drift may be the access attackers gain before a protocol knows it has a problem. Apr 8, 2026 · Gino Matos Two responses, two philosophies Circle published its formal response on Apr. 10, and its core argument was that USDC freezes occur when the law requires action. Circle is legally compelled by an appropriate authority through a lawful process. Circle pushed back on the idea that an issuer should act as an ad hoc chain police force, arguing that open access to permissionless infrastructure is a feature, and that the bigger problem is that legal frameworks have not yet kept pace with the speed of on-chain exploits. The stablecoin issuer also made a property-rights argument, claiming that arbitrary freezes set dangerous precedents for lawful users, and the power