NEAR Intents blocked more than $50 million in attempted cross-chain transfers tied to last week's $387.5 million Bitget hack, according to Alex Shevchenko, general manager of the cross-chain swap protocol.

The action, executed through NEAR Intents' SHIELD system, resulted in $503,000 of the targeted funds being frozen during execution. Approximately $166,000 in suspected stolen assets passed through the protocol despite the filters, Shevchenko said in a post detailing the operation.

What does the SHIELD system actually do?

SHIELD is the compliance layer that NEAR Intents uses to screen swap requests against known exploit-linked addresses. When the system flags a transfer, the protocol routes the transaction around blocked destinations or halts it outright.

In the Bitget case, more than $50 million in flagged transactions were diverted away from NEAR Intents to other venues, while the $503,000 freeze represents funds SHIELD was able to lock in mid-flight.

The Bitget exploit hit the exchange last Thursday and drained $387.5 million from its wallets, according to disclosures from the company. A significant portion of those funds moved across chains before reaching Ethereum, Shevchenko wrote.

How does this contrast with THORChain?

THORChain, the decentralized cross-chain liquidity network, declined calls from Bitget CEO Gracy Chen to block addresses tied to the exploit. THORChain has stated publicly that it does not censor by design, framing any past network halts as emergency security actions rather than selective freezes.

"THORChain halted the network in the past, but this is an emergency security mechanism that affects the protocol broadly and is not a selective freeze of specific funds or an individual swap," the project has said, according to posts cited in connection with the Bitget case.

Shevchenko used his statement to draw a sharp distinction. "The people who build these systems make choices about what those protocols enable. Refusing to help launder stolen assets is one of ours," he said.

What happens to the frozen funds?

NEAR Intents will waive the 5 percent bounty Bitget offered for freezing attacker balances, and a further 5 percent for recovery, directing more capital back to the exchange. Shevchenko said the locked $503,000 will be returned through an appropriate legal process.

Circle and Tether separately blacklisted a wallet linked to the Bitget exploiter on Friday, freezing roughly $318,013 in USDT and USDC combined, according to on-chain data reviewed at the time.

What is the broader argument?

Shevchenko framed the dispute as a clash over the meaning of "permissionless" infrastructure. He wrote that permissionless systems do not necessarily have to be neutral, and that a financial system leaving stolen assets unconstrained protects the thief rather than the user.

"Property rights are fundamental to functioning markets," he said. "A financial system where stealing an asset gives you an unrestricted right to monetize it isn't a freer system. It is simply a system that protects the thief. Such systems cannot become the economic backbone of the future."

He extended the point to the wider industry posture on theft. "Crypto cannot simultaneously demand recognition of digital property rights and build infrastructure optimized for monetizing stolen property," Shevchenko said.

What's the operational fallout?

The Bitget hack, which CEO Gracy Chen has attributed to a third-party security vulnerability rather than a flaw in the exchange's core infrastructure, underscores how cross-chain swap venues are now acting as de facto anti-money-laundering choke points. Circle, Tether and NEAR Intents each executed a distinct form of seizure within 48 hours of the drain.

THORChain has not indicated any change to its no-censorship policy. As recovery proceedings advance, cross-chain swap protocols will face mounting pressure to decide whether to expand compliance tooling or hold to a strict neutrality line through the remainder of the case.