Some blockchains have built administrative freeze mechanisms into their protocols, raising questions about immutability versus protection from large-scale theft.

Scope and adoption

According to available reports, 16 blockchains already include functions to freeze funds, while another 19 could add similar controls with minimal protocol changes.

Notable cases

These mechanisms have been used multiple times to respond to hacks and exploits, producing both restored balances and controversy about central control.

• Sui froze $162 M following the Cetus exploit.
• Aptos implemented a blacklist capability to block malicious addresses.
• BNB Chain employed built‑in blacklists to mitigate a bridge attack valued at $570 M.
• VeChain set a precedent in 2019 by freezing $6.6 M after a breach.

Trade‑offs and implications

The presence of freezing tools creates a tension: they can limit losses and facilitate recovery, but they also introduce points of centralized authority that conflict with the original ideal of censorship‑resistant systems.

Designers and communities face a policy choice between prioritizing absolute asset autonomy and enabling emergency interventions that protect a broader user base from significant financial damage.