Arbitrum council member: Circle ignores hacker funds while Tether acts.

Griff Green, a member of the Arbitrum Security Council, has publicly criticised Circle for failing to freeze funds linked to hacks — contrasting it directly with Tether, which he says actively intervenes. Green frames the difference as cultural: Tether, in his view, is run by crypto natives who hold early-era principles around community protection, while Goldman Sachs-backed Circle is primarily profit-driven.

Green went further, suggesting the community may need to sell off $USDC holdings as a pressure tactic to force Circle into taking action against hacker-linked addresses. The comments reflect a long-running tension in crypto between decentralisation ideals and the compliance posture of regulated stablecoin issuers.

Circle has not publicly responded to the remarks.

Source attribution

Aggregated from WuBlockchain · Verified · Last refreshed 11d ago

Open original →

Original content

Wu Blockchain ✓ @WuBlockchain · 11d ago

Arbitrum Security Council Member: Circle Is Clearly Not Full of Good Men Arbitrum Security Council member Griff Green @griffgreen states that Tether actively freezes hacker funds, while Circle does nothing. He believes Tether consists of traditional crypto natives who value early crypto principles, whereas Goldman Sachs-backed Circle only cares about profitability. He suggests that the community might need to sell off USDC to force these institutions to take action against hacker threats.

View on X →