A report from Bybit’s “Lazarus Security Lab” immediately claims 16 blockchains have built-in fund freezing measures, whereas a further 19 are able to the identical freezing with some minor tweaks, elevating issues about decentralization and transparency.
Researchers used synthetic intelligence (AI), alongside guide overview, to look into 166 completely different blockchains to find out their freezing capabilities.
The complete report discovered 16 chains using three strategies of freezing mechanisms, resembling hardcoded public blacklists, config file-based freezing strategies using non-public blacklists, and a blacklist enforced by means of an on-chain good contract.
Hardcoded freezing mechanisms are constructed straight into the chain and are utilized by Binance’s BNB Chain, in addition to Chiliz, Viction, XDC Community, and VeChain.
The config file-based freezing is utilized by Concord ONE, HAVAH, Apts, Supra, EOS Community, Oasis Community, WAX, Sui, Linea, and Waves. This technique depends on a blacklist saved in native configuration recordsdata and managed by validators, the muse, and core builders.
Solely the HEC chain, in any other case often called the Huobi Eco Chain, makes use of on-chain good contracts.
Certainly, BNB Chain and VeChain have been in a position to make use of their hardcoded freezing strategies in response to a $570 million bridge exploit and a $6.6 million breach, respectively, whereas Sui froze $162 million in stolen belongings following the Cetus hack.
The report additionally discovered that 19 blockchains may implement these strategies with some “relatively minor protocol changes.”
These blockchains embody Arbitrum, Cosmos, MANTRA, Terra, Axelar, Babylon, Celestia, dYdX, Dymension, Dymension DYM Evm, Evmos, Initia, Kava, Nillion, OKExChain, THORChain, Sei, Secret Community, and XION.
Bybit’s Lazarus Safety Lab requires larger freeze transparency
Bybit’s report means that blockchain foundations and companies usually are not being absolutely clear about their freezing capabilities, and in flip, the extent to which they’re actually decentralized.
It concluded, “The presence of these mechanisms fundamentally challenges the foundational principles of a decentralized ecosystem and necessitates further discourse within the blockchain community, but it has prevented hackers from stealing funds.”
An openness about these on-chain freezing capabilities and emergency intervention mechanisms, it says, is essential to blockchain governance and needs to be publicly disclosed extra typically.
A31 Labs’ Armin Reiter notes that any blockchain can implement freezing. He argues that the true differentiator is “how decentralized a system is and if the validators/miners accept the change or not.”
He claims that such freezes is not going to be carried out on Bitcoin as a result of there’s sturdy group consensus in opposition to it and that crucial takeaway is which chains have already accepted these tradeoffs.
In some circumstances, these freezing mechanisms have failed. Crypto safety agency GoPlus Safety highlighted that the hacker of DeFi change Balancer bypassed a freeze on the Sonic chain, and moved roughly $3 million value of crypto from a frozen handle to a brand new one.
The agency claimed the hacker was in a position to do that as a result of the freeze solely affected its native token and never different ERC20 tokens.
