NEAR Intents Freezes Bitget Hack Funds Amid DeFi Debate
NEAR Intents froze about $503,000 linked to the Bitget hack after attackers tried to route more than $50 million through its cross-chain protocol. Around $166,000 reportedly completed transactions before the SHIELD risk-monitoring system stopped the flow. More than $50 million in rejected transfers later moved toward other liquidity providers.
NEAR Intents said SHIELD combines transaction monitoring, external researchers and data from centralised platforms to identify suspicious funds. The protocol will waive its share of Bitget’s recovery bounty and return the frozen assets through legal procedures. NEAR co-founder Illia Polosukhin argued that permissionless blockchain access does not require every application or liquidity provider to process every transaction.
Bitget said attackers stole about $387.5 million on 24 September after compromising backend wallet infrastructure. The exchange said its User Protection Fund is expected to cover the loss, while withdrawals are being restored in stages. Mandiant and SlowMist are assisting with the investigation.
Bitget welcomed the intervention, but THORChain rejected a request to block the attacker’s addresses, saying it does not censor transactions by design. Circle and Tether separately froze about $318,000 in USDC and USDT linked to the incident. The case highlights the growing conflict between DeFi’s permissionless model, anti-money-laundering controls and protocol-level intervention. For traders, the Bitget hack and NEAR Intents response could increase scrutiny of cross-chain liquidity, stablecoin controls and the ability of providers to halt suspicious transfers.
Neutral
The direct price impact is likely neutral because the event concerns fund recovery and cross-chain compliance rather than a change to the underlying supply, usage or economics of the named tokens. NEAR Intents may face short-term reputational pressure from traders who view transaction screening as centralisation, while others may see the response as a positive security measure. That could create volatility in NEAR-related sentiment without establishing a clear directional trend.
Bitget’s BGB could experience limited short-term pressure if the hack raises concerns about exchange security, although the exchange’s protection fund and staged withdrawal restoration may reduce contagion risk. RUNE could also see mixed reactions because THORChain’s refusal to censor transactions reinforces its decentralised design but may worry traders focused on compliance. USDC and USDT are unlikely to face material price disruption because the frozen amounts are small relative to their circulating supplies and both stablecoins are designed to maintain their dollar pegs.
Longer term, the incident could support stronger monitoring and recovery standards across cross-chain markets. However, rejected funds moving to alternative liquidity providers shows that selective intervention may not fully stop laundering routes. Traders should monitor exchange withdrawals, stablecoin blacklists, cross-chain volumes and any new legal or protocol-policy developments before treating the event as a bullish or bearish catalyst.