πͺ Frozone of DeFi
AI Summary
A class action lawsuit accuses Circle of 'aiding and abetting' North Korean hackers who stole $280M from the Drift protocol, arguing Circle had a legal duty to freeze USDC funds during the 8-hour window before they were bridged to Ethereum. The lawsuit proposes a novel legal theory that a stablecoin issuer's technical ability to freeze tokens creates a legal obligation to do so in real time. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire counters that Circle will only freeze funds when directed by law enforcement, and argues a legal safe harbor is needed before issuers can proactively freeze funds.
Key Facts
Author Takes
Circle's duty to freeze USDC during the Drift exploit
The courts β not a private company executive β should decide whether stablecoin issuers have a legal responsibility to proactively freeze funds during suspected hacks.
Circle's freeze liability
Circle created significantly more legal liability for themselves by not freezing the Drift exploit funds, since BSA safe harbor covers proactive freezes but not failure to act on known criminal activity.
Arbitrary freeze functions by stablecoin issuers
If Circle implements arbitrary freeze/seize functions beyond what the law requires, it undermines both the principle that code is law and that law is law.
Related topics
More from The Breakdown
πͺ The onchain gacha machine
Blockworks writer Byron Gilliam explores Collector Crypt, an onchain gacha platform where users spend USDC to open randomized PokΓ©mon card packs, with
πͺ The new math of new news
A new study titled 'The Inefficient Pricing of News' finds that markets are surprisingly slow to incorporate news into stock prices, with an LLM-based
πͺ Thursday Links
This Blockworks newsletter covers four topics: academic research on sanction-evasion MEV in stablecoin enforcement, a critique of Strategy's STRC pref