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.
Frequently asked questions
-
What specific actions has Tether taken regarding hacker funds?
Tether has been described as actively intervening to freeze funds linked to hacks, in contrast to Circle's inaction.
-
How might the community pressure Circle to act on hacker-linked funds?
Griff Green suggested that the community could sell off $USDC holdings as a tactic to compel Circle to address the issue.
CryptoSlate
CoinDesk
TheBlock