偉大的Sui治理爭議

CETUS協議在X上的公告表示，“攻擊者已經從其流動性加密池中偷走了約2.23億美元”

Cetus Protocol's announcement on X that “an attacker has stolen approximately $223M” from its liquidity crypto pools set off the loudest governance controversy in Sui's short history. The team wrote that it had “took immediate action to lock our contract preventing further theft of funds,” adding a reassurance that “$162M of the compromised funds have been successfully paused. … We are working with the Sui Foundation and other ecosystem members right now on next-step solutions” and promising “a full incident report.”

CETUS協議在X上的宣布，即“攻擊者已經從其流動性加密池偷走了約2.23億美元”，引發了SUI短期歷史上最響亮的治理爭議。該團隊寫道，“已採取了立即行動來鎖定我們的合同，以防止進一步盜竊資金”，並保證“ 1.62億美元的折衷資金已成功暫停。…我們正在與SUI Foundation和其他生態系統成員合作，目前正在與NextSep Solutions上的其他生態系統成員合作”，並有望“全部事件報告”。

Those next-step solutions triggered a philosophical firefight. To keep the stolen assets marooned on-chain, a super-majority of validators agreed to ignore outgoing transactions from three hacker-controlled addresses. Cyber Capital founder Justin Bons argued that the very act of blacklisting demonstrates structural centralization: “SUI’s validators are colluding to CENSOR the hacker’s TXs right now! … Does that make SUI centralized? The short answer is YES; what matters more is why?” Citing only 114 validators and founder–heavy staking, he declared: “The ‘founders’ own the majority of supply & there are only 114 validators!”

那些下一步的解決方案引發了哲學交火。為了使被盜的資產陷入鍊子上，驗證者的超級勞動者同意忽略來自三個黑客控制地址的即將推出的交易。網絡資本創始人賈斯汀·鮑恩斯（Justin Bons）認為，黑名單的行為表明了結構性的集中化：“ Sui的驗證者正在核對目前審查黑客的TXS！…這是否使Sui集中了？簡短的答案是肯定的？更重要的是？”為什麼？ ”他僅援引114個驗證者和創始人的股份，宣稱：“創始人'擁有大多數供應，只有114個驗證者！ ”

Amogh Gupta from the SUI Foundation countered that the move was a legitimate exercise of distributed governance. “Just because validators reach consensus about something, doesn't mean they're 'colluding'. […] Validators on other chains can (and have) done the same. You can view it like OFAC. apexminds claims to be able to disable ALL outgoing transactions from the hacker's address. This is false. It is possible to disable transactions to another chain, e.g. the hacker moved some funds to ETH. We could choose to ignore those transactions, rendering them effectively unspendable. But we haven't done so yet. We are currently discussing what, if any, further action to take. apexminds claims that this is impossible because there is no "switch" that disables transactions. This is correct. It would work like ignoring transactions to a specific token, e.g. imagine a scenario where a specific token is being used maliciously and broadly in an attempt to drain liquidity from multiple protocols. In such a scenario, perhaps validators might choose to collectively ignore that token type. It is not about brute force but rather about making targeted economic decisions. It is an extreme measure that would be used in a truly urgent instance with broad agreement among validators. It is not something that a single entity could do unilaterally. It is also not something that is done lightly. It is a capability that could be used for good or bad, and there is an opportunity for discussion and debate among validators and the community at large to decide how, if at all, it should be used. It is a collective decision-making process, not a hierarchical one. It is also not something that is unique to Sui. OFAC sanctions are a capability that exists on Ethereum to prevent sanctioned parties from engaging in economic activity on-chain. This capability was used earlier in 2023 to great effect to largely shut down North Korean cybercriminal activity on Ethereum. The point is that this capability is not specific to Sui. The OFAC/sanctioned transactions were a grey area that some viewed as economically and geopolitically motivated. A hack is clear as day bad, so there is no contention about it being good or bad.

SUI基金會的Amogh Gupta反駁說，此舉是對分佈式治理的合法行動。 “僅僅因為驗證者對某事達成共識，並不意味著他們在其他鏈上可以（並且）做同樣的驗證器。它們有效地說，我們目前沒有這樣做，如果有任何行動，因為沒有任何“切換”，因為沒有“切換”。驗證者可能會忽略象徵性的，而是關於有針對性的經濟決策，這是一個非常緊迫的措施。這是一個集體的決策過程，這不是一個層次，這也不是Sui的獨特之處。 OFAC/批准的交易是一個灰色的地區，有些人在經濟上和地緣政治上都有動機。

Bons rejected the analogy. “You are misinformed about the 2023 OFAC regulations: Not a single ETH TX was censored, as collusion was impossible on a chain with low Network Concentration and a large number of independent validators. That SUI’s distribution of power is so concentrated that this is even possible in the first place is the problem. We are talking about a single entity (or small group) having enough power to shut down all TXs to another chain (which would be a major event), not something that can be done quickly or easily. It is also not something that is done lightly. It is an extreme measure that would be used in a truly urgent instance with broad agreement among validators and the community at large. It is not something that a single entity could do unilaterally. It is also not something that is done without discussion and debate. It is a collective decision-making process, not a hierarchical one. It is also not something that is unique to Sui. OFAC sanctions are a capability that exists on Ethereum to prevent sanctioned parties from engaging in economic activity on-chain. This capability was used earlier in 2023 to largely shut down North Korean cybercriminal activity on Ethereum. The point is that this capability is not specific to Sui. The OFAC/sanctioned transactions were a grey area that some viewed as economically and geopolitically motivated. A hack is clear as day bad, so there is no contention about it being good or bad.”

邦斯拒絕了類比。 “You are misinformed about the 2023 OFAC regulations: Not a single ETH TX was censored, as collusion was impossible on a chain with low Network Concentration and a large number of independent validators. That SUI's distribution of power is so concentrated that this is even possible in the first place is the problem. We are talking about a single entity (or small group) having enough power to shut down all TXs to another chain (which would be a major event), not something that can be done quickly or很容易做到這一點。從事鏈接的經濟活動的批准。

Gupta: “This is a common misperception. The founders' tokens are locked up for a multi-year schedule

古普塔：“這是一個常見的誤解。創始人的令牌已鎖定為多年的時間表