Recently, on-chain investigator ZachXBT publicly raised questions on the X platform regarding the post-incident handling of an attack involving the SwapNet contract on the Base network. According to the information disclosed, the incident resulted in losses of approximately USD 13 million in USDC, of which around USD 3 million remained at an address theoretically subject to freezing, namely 0x6cAad…833e. ZachXBT noted that, as of the time of his post, there had been no clear progress indicating that the relevant assets had been frozen or recovered.
Disputes Over Post-Attack Response
The core of the discussion does not center on the technical aspects of the attack itself, but rather on how the stablecoin issuer responded in terms of asset disposition after the incident. ZachXBT referred to the parties involved as “bad actors,” focusing on the absence of timely and explicit intervention despite the fact that part of the assets were known to be located at a controllable address. This criticism has triggered broader debate over the boundaries of responsibility for centralized stablecoin issuers in security incidents.
The Dual Nature of Freezing Authority Mechanisms
Stablecoin freezing authority has long been regarded as a compliance tool, intended to support judicial actions, sanctions enforcement, or risk control requirements. In real-world security incidents, however, market participants often expect this mechanism to be used to mitigate user losses. When freezing authority is not exercised, or when the logic behind its use is opaque, it may instead amplify concerns regarding governance consistency and fairness.
Impact of Centralized Governance on Ecosystem Trust
ZachXBT further questioned whether the governance model and associated risk characteristics of centralized stablecoins are undermining the trust foundation of developers and users within the ecosystem. In his remarks, the question of why developers continue to build applications on top of such assets was framed as one worthy of reflection. This perspective highlights the long-standing structural tension between centralized governance mechanisms and decentralized application development.
Regulatory and Compliance Research Perspective
From a regulatory research standpoint, controversies of this nature do not equate to findings of misconduct. Rather, they expose differences in institutional expectations regarding how stablecoins should respond to security incidents. Regulators typically focus on whether freezing authority is governed by clear triggering conditions, execution procedures, and accountability frameworks, rather than on the specific operational choice made in a single case.
Implications for On-Chain Risk Identification and Compliance Monitoring
This incident illustrates that the centralized control mechanisms embedded in stablecoins have themselves become a significant variable in on-chain risk identification. For compliance monitoring, attention should extend beyond attack behavior to include the post-incident paths and status of affected assets. From an industry perspective, analysis of how freezing authority is exercised, the transparency of governance, and the degree of asset controllability can enhance the identification of potential compliance and trust risks. Such analytical frameworks also provide a practical reference case for on-chain risk and compliance monitoring practices, including those undertaken by Trustformer KYT.