PANews reported on April 24th that, according to CoinDesk, the Arbitrum Security Council has frozen approximately 30,000 ETH (about $71 million) in funds linked to the KelpDAO attack, sparking a renewed discussion within the crypto industry about the meaning of decentralization. Supporters argue that this is a system designed to prevent the theft of tens of millions of dollars, with the Security Council acting as a last resort, intervening only in extreme circumstances, reflecting a decentralized model authorized by the community rather than completely eliminating decentralization. Steven Goldfeder, co-founder and CEO of Offchain Labs, stated that the DAO cannot participate in decision-making in such emergency situations because public discussion would be tantamount to notifying North Korea. The Security Council's action involved transferring funds from the attacker's address to an untouchable wallet without system downtime or impacting other users.

Critics argue that this exposes the fact that even in seemingly decentralized systems, ultimate control remains in the hands of a few. If a small group can intervene to stop hackers, the same mechanism could theoretically be used in other situations, whether due to regulatory pressure or political influence. The core concern is not the specific case, but the precedent: if intervention is possible, where are the boundaries, and who decides them?