Crypto’s Existential Crisis: Can Decentralization and Regulation Coexist?

Decentralized finance experts agree that collaboration is key to building a framework that addresses regulators’ concerns without undermining the potential of decentralized technologies.

Bybit Hack Puts DeFi Regulation Debate in Spotlight

Following the Lazarus Group’s Bybit hack, which is said to biggest crypto heist in history, initial industry-wide cooperation to block the outflow of over $1.4 billion in stolen funds was met with praise. However, disagreements quickly surfaced, with several platforms, particularly decentralized ones, facing accusations of aiding the hackers.

Allegations of complicity grew louder as the value of the stolen digital assets increased. As reported by Bitcoin.com News and other outlets, anger was initially directed at Thorchain and later at OKX, a Seychelles-headquartered cryptocurrency exchange. Some critics argued that both platforms had not done enough to proactively thwart the hackers, who were reportedly working tirelessly to move the funds.

Proponents, however, have defended decentralized protocols, framing attempts to censor or alter underlying code to appease regulators as a betrayal of core principles. Others argue that regulators are overstepping and attempting to impose traditional financial regulations on a fundamentally different system.

Meanwhile, while Thorchain has faced community backlash, OKX, which recently obtained a license to operate in the Eurozone, has encountered more significant pressure. Its license appears to have been used as leverage by European regulators to launch an inquiry into OKX. The inquiry followed claims that Bybit hackers used the exchange’s decentralized exchange (DEX) aggregation app to move some of the stolen funds, as reported by Bitcoin.com News.

After initially denying an investigation, OKX effectively confirmed it by announcing the suspension of its DEX aggregation app on March 17. The exchange stated this was to allow for “additional upgrades to prevent further misuse.” OKX cited an “incomplete labeling” problem as the reason for the mistaken identification of its DEX aggregator as the “point of trade.”

Crypto Industry Security Lags

According to the exchange, the DEX aggregator operates as an “inherently” non-custodial platform, meaning it does not hold customer assets. However, OKX’s suspension of the DEX aggregator at the behest of regulators signals a broader trend: regulators are increasingly utilizing existing frameworks or creating new ones like Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) to exert greater control over the crypto industry.

This move, along with actions taken by U.S. authorities who blacklisted Tornado Cash, a decentralized privacy tool, are said to demonstrates the extent to which regulators are willing to act against decentralized technologies perceived as facilitating illicit activities.

Such regulator action also highlights the crucial issue of balancing security and compliance with the core principles of decentralization and censorship resistance. As the fallout from the Bybit hack has shown, not all in the crypto community are unwavering in their adherence to the decentralization mantra when significant stakes are involved.

Therefore, to prevent future disunity, a solution acceptable to all stakeholders is needed. Nanak Nihal Singh Khalsa, co-founder at Holonym, believes this solution doesn’t “require centralization or any harmful kind of censorship.” However, Khalsa asserts that due to the industry’s lack of recent security improvements, regulatory intervention appears inevitable.

“Unfortunately, the industry has not improved recently so it is possible regulators will step in and impose solutions such as traditional AML/KYC protocols. Unfortunately, these would increase censorship and centralization,” the Holonym co-founder said.

Andrei Grachev, Managing Partner of Falcon Finance, advocates for collaboration among all stakeholders. He believes regulators, security experts, and protocols must work together to establish decentralized risk mitigation frameworks that protect users without compromising the core principles of open financial systems.

Meanwhile, a primary argument against allowing regulators to dictate events in decentralized finance (DeFi) is that it stifles innovation. Furthermore, anti-censorship advocates insist that imposing regulation on the DeFi ecosystem could drive development underground. However, a security advisor with Apex Foundation, who requested anonymity, argues this isn’t necessarily true.

“External regulatory influence isn’t inherently problematic–its impact depends on alignment with a project’s core values. When stakeholders are properly informed and governance structures function effectively, each project can independently evaluate whether compliance compromises its mission,” the security advisor said.

To illustrate, the advisor points to the stance taken by privacy-focused services like Protonmail and Tutanota against the EU’s encryption regulations. After determining that certain regulatory demands “fundamentally” contradicted their core mission, they opted to withdraw services.

The advisor in the meantime argues that the industry currently has an opportunity to demonstrate its ability to self-regulate, which it must utilize before more restrictive measures are implemented.

The three experts agreed that collaboration is key to building a framework that addresses regulators’ concerns without undermining the potential of decentralized technologies. They offered differing opinions on achieving this, with the Apex Foundation advisor highlighting the importance of the collaborative framework’s structure. Khalsa, for his part, emphasized that the framework should focus on the security of underlying protocols and wallets.

Source