在……之前，Tether冻结了THORChain上的145万美元USDT

THORChain resumes operations: Tether briefly froze USDT events worth approximately US$1.45 million

Tether temporarily blacklisted four THORChain vault addresses holding approximately US$14.5 million, resulting in the interruption of some operations of the cross-chain agreement. However, within a few hours, Tether removed the restrictions without publicly disclosing the specific reasons. Chad Barraford, co-founder of THORChain technology, said the agreement did not receive any advance notice from Tether before the address was restricted. Stored in the affected addresses are USDTs located on the Tron network and used for cross-chain redemption as part of the THORChain infrastructure.

Barraford initially said the team was working to determine whether the action was caused by a mistake or a misunderstanding. He later confirmed that the addresses had been unfrozen and transactions would return to normal. Throughout the incident, funds remained in the vault address. The so-called "restriction" actually lists the relevant address on Tether's blacklist, thereby preventing the affected USDTs from transferring.

Why was Tether able to freeze THORChain's treasury?

Unlike native decentralized assets such as Bitcoin, USDT is unique in that Tether retains management control in its token contracts, allowing it to selectively blacklist specific addresses. Once an address is restricted, just having a private key is not enough to move the USDTs stored in it. The issuer's smart contract can refuse transactions involving the wallet until the restrictions are lifted.

Tether often uses this capability when working with regulators and law enforcement. The company said earlier this year that it had worked with more than 340 law enforcement agencies in 65 countries around the world to freeze billions of dollars in USDT related to sanctions, fraud and other suspected illegal activities. For example, Tether said it froze nearly $550 million in Iranian-related USDT during 2026 after U.S. authorities took action. Currently, there is no public evidence that THORChain's treasury is related to sanctions, criminal activity or law enforcement requests. Tether also did not publicly explain what triggered the temporary blacklist.

Investor revelation: THORChain can decentralize control of the vault to the verifier, but it cannot eliminate Tether's ability to freeze USDT at the token contract level.

Why will the freeze affect decentralized exchanges?

THORChain was originally designed to allow users to exchange native assets between different blockchains without relying on a centralized exchange. The assets used for these exchanges are held in protocol-controlled escrow vaults and protected through threshold signature technology, which means that no single verifier can independently control the funds. This security model prevents a single THORChain operator from unilaterally moving assets. But it does not override the built-in control mechanisms of the asset itself. As a result, this temporary freeze of the USDT exposes an independent dependence: even if custody rights are decentralized among THORChain validators, centralized stablecoin issuers can still decide whether their tokens are still negotiable.

During the implementation of the restrictions, THORChain temporarily suspended affected Tron activities. Other blockchain assets are not affected by the same Tether blacklist. This distinction is critical as decentralized finance (DeFi) increasingly relies on stablecoins issued by central institutions to provide liquidity, conduct transactions and settle. Decentralization of the agreement does not mean that every asset passed through the agreement has the same censorship resistance or counterparty risk characteristics.

Is the THORChain freeze part of the broader Tether problem?

This incident follows several recent disputes involving Tether restricting the ability of USDT wallets. Cross-border payments company Conduit Technology sued Tether on October 5 over USDT worth US$2.76 million, which the company said had not been unfrozen since September 2025. Conduit claimed its treasury wallet itself was not listed as the subject of a freeze by Brazilian authorities and said Tether failed to provide sufficient explanation for maintaining the restrictions. These allegations have not yet been judicially decided, and the lawsuit itself does not establish that Tether's actions were illegal. Two other Thai businessmen filed separate lawsuits against Tether in August involving approximately $42.4 million in frozen USDT, alleging that his address was restricted before a seizure order was obtained by U.S. authorities. The case also questioned the timing of the issuer's exercise of blacklist power, rather than the existence of technical capabilities.

Tether also often freezes addresses without immediately disclosing the identity of the address owner or why. In September this year, 15 Tron wallets containing approximately $3.31 million were blacklisted in a series of centralized transactions, with no public ownership information initially available at the time.

Investor revelation: The key risk lies not only in the freeze itself, but also in the uncertainty that triggers issuer intervention and the timeliness of review or reversal measures for legitimate holders.

What should the DeFi protocol focus on?

The direct interference ended when Tether removed four THORChain addresses from the blacklist. But since neither side has publicly explained why they chose these vaults in the first place, the larger issue remains unresolved. If the freeze was due to miscalculation, then this incident would illustrate how wallet screening decisions temporarily disrupted the protocol infrastructure. If it is due to enforcement or compliance requests, this basis of disclosure will provide a clearer indication of when a vault controlled by the agreement may be targeted.

In any case, this incident exposes the structural limitations of the DeFi system, which relies on centralized management of stablecoins: decentralized custody and transaction approval do not eliminate the presence of the issuer behind the token.