In October 2026, THORChain co-founder and lead developer Chad Barraford defended the protocol's governance model. He argued that THORChain maintains core neutrality similar to Bitcoin and Ethereum, despite criticism regarding its response to the September 2026 Bitget hack, which resulted in estimated losses of $387.5 million.
THORChain declined to intervene with funds linked to the Bitget hack. Barraford stated that the protocol cannot selectively block addresses, a policy in place since February 2025 when the project retired its address blacklisting feature. He emphasized that network-wide pauses affect all users equally, unlike targeted address blocking.
Governance on THORChain is collective, requiring approval from two-thirds of nodes for most changes. However, the protocol utilizes a threshold signature scheme to manage pooled funds. Critics point out that the Mimir system allows as few as three or four validators to trigger emergency actions, such as pausing the network for multiples of 720 blocks, which equals approximately one hour.
The debate highlights differing approaches to decentralization. While Bitcoin and Ethereum rely on rigid, slow governance to resist pressure, THORChain prioritizes flexibility through emergency levers. Critics argue that the ability of a small group to halt the network creates a distinct risk profile compared to networks requiring broad coordination.
