THORChain has been called a money laundering protocol — a label no decentralized finance (DeFi) project wants unless it’s prepared to have regulators breathing down its neck.
Its supporters have fended off the criticism by championing decentralization, while its critics point to recent activities that showed some of the protocol’s centralized tendencies.
After exploiting Bybit for $1.4 billion, the North Korean state-backed hackers behind the attack, known as the Lazarus Group, flocked to THORChain, making it their top choice to convert stolen funds from Ether (ETH) to Bitcoin (BTC). Lazarus finished converting its Ether within just 10 days of the hack.
The controversy has triggered internal conflict, governance cracks and developer resignations, exposing a deeper issue and question: Can DeFi remain neutral when criminals exploit it at scale?
THORChain is not a mixer
THORChain is a decentralized swap protocol, so some say it’s unfair to call it a laundering machine, as the output is traceable. It’s not like a mixer, whose purpose is to conceal cryptocurrency fund trails — though the reasons for using mixers vary between users, with some simply wanting to preserve their privacy and others using them for illicit purposes.
Federico Paesano, investigations lead at Crystal Intelligence, argued in a LinkedIn post that it is misleading to state that the North Korean hackers “laundered” the Bybit hack proceeds.
“So far, there’s been no concealment, only conversion. The stolen ETH have been swapped for BTC using various providers, but every swap is fully traceable. This isn’t laundering; it’s just asset movement across blockchains.”
Tracing funds swapped to Bitcoin is time-consuming, but not impossible. Source: Federico Paesano
Hackers also moved funds through Uniswap and OKX DEX, yet THORChain has become the focal point of scrutiny due to the sheer volume of funds that passed through it. In a March 4 X post, Bybit CEO Ben Zhou said that 72% of the stolen funds (361,255 ETH) had flowed through THORChain, far surpassing activity on other DeFi services.
Over $1 billion in Ether from the Bybit theft was traced to THORChain. Source: Coldfire/Dune Analytics
A truly decentralized platform’s strength lies in its neutrality and censorship-resistance, which are foundational to blockchain’s value proposition, according to Rachel Lin, CEO of decentralized exchange SynFutures.
“The line between decentralization and responsibility can evolve with technology,” Lin told Cointelegraph. “While human intervention contradicts decentralization’s ethos, protocol-level innovations could automate safeguards against illicit activity.”
THORChain collected at least $5 million in fees from these transactions, a windfall for a project already struggling with financial instability. This financial benefit has further fueled criticism, with some questioning whether THORChain’s reluctance to intervene was ideological or simply a matter of self-preservation.
Source: Yogi (Screenshot cropped by Cointelegraph for visibility)
Governance cracks show when decentralization becomes a shield
The controversy sparked a dilemma on whether THORChain should act. In an attempt to block the hackers, three validators voted to halt ETH trading, effectively closing off their swapping route. However, four validators quickly voted to overturn the decision.
This exposed a contradiction in THORChain’s governance model. The protocol claims to be absolutely decentralized, yet it had previously intervened to pause its lending feature due to insolvency risks (swaps still remained operational).
Some crypto community members called out THORChain’s actions as selective decentralization, where governance intervention only occurs when it serves the protocol’s own interests.
The backlash was immediate. Pluto, a key THORChain developer, resigned. Another developer, TCB, who identified themselves as one of the three validators who voted to halt Ether trades, hinted at leaving unless governance issues were addressed.
Meanwhile, blockchain investigator ZachXBT called out Asgardex, a THORChain-based decentralized exchange, for not returning fees earned from hackers, while other protocols reportedly refunded ill-gotten gains.
THORChain founder John-Paul Thorbjornsen responded by claiming that centralized exchanges pocket millions from facilitating illicit transactions unless pressured by authorities.
“This pisses me off. Do we get ETH and BTC nodes to give back their transaction fees? What about GETH or BTCCore devs – who write the software, funded by grants/donations?” asked Thorbjornsen.
THORChain’s growing regulatory risks, as previously demonstrated by privacy tools
For now, THORChain has avoided any direct enforcement actions from governments, but history suggests that DeFi protocols facilitating illicit finance may not escape scrutiny forever. Tornado Cash, a well-known crypto mixer, was sanctioned by the US Treasury in 2022 after being used to launder billions of dollars, though it was later overturned by a US court. Similarly, Railgun came under FBI scrutiny in 2023 after North Korean hackers used it to move $60 million in stolen Ether.
Railgun presents a unique case, as it’s marketed as a privacy protocol rather than a mixer or a DEX. But the distinction still draws comparisons to THORChain, given that privacy protocols frequently face criticism for potentially enabling illicit activities.
“Critics often claim that privacy-focused projects enable crime, but in reality, protecting financial privacy is a fundamental right and a cornerstone of decentralized innovation,” Chen Feng, head of research at Autonomys and associate professor and research chair in blockchain at the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan Campus, told Cointelegraph.
“Technologies like ZK-proofs and trusted execution environments can secure user data without obscuring illicit activity entirely. Through optional transparency measures and robust onchain forensics, suspicious patterns can still be detected. The goal is to strike a balance: empower users with privacy while ensuring the system has built-in safeguards to discourage and trace illicit use.”
Lin of SynFutures said continued illicit use of decentralized protocols would “absolutely” lead to drastic measures from authorities.
“Governments will likely escalate measures if they perceive decentralized protocols as systemic risks. This could include sanctioning protocol addresses, pressuring infrastructure providers, blacklisting entire networks or going after the builders,” she said.
Rising pressure against THORChain
THORChain supporters argue it is being unfairly singled out, as hackers have also used other DeFi protocols. But regulators tend to focus on the biggest enablers, and THORChain processed the vast majority of the stolen funds from the Bybit hack. This makes it an easy target for enforcement actions ranging from Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions to developer prosecutions.
“When the huge majority of your flows are stolen funds from north korea for the biggest money heist in human history, it will become a national security issue, this isn’t a game anymore,” TCB wrote on X.
“The threshold you want to be credibly decentralized you need a network of 1000+ unique validators. There is a reason why @Chainflip fixed this issue on the network level so quickly and all front end are applying censorship.”
If regulators decide to crack down, the consequences could be severe. Sanctions on THORChain’s validators, front-end service, and liquidity providers could cripple its ecosystem, while major exchanges might delist RUNE (RUNE), cutting off its access to liquidity.
There is also the possibility of legal action against developers, as seen in the Tornado Cash case, or pressure to introduce compliance measures like sanctioned address filtering — something that would contradict THORChain’s decentralized ethos and alienate its core user base.
THORChain’s entanglement with North Korean hackers has put it at a crossroads. The protocol must decide whether to take action now or risk having regulators step in to make that decision for them.
For now, the protocol remains firm in its laissez-faire approach, but history suggests DeFi projects that ignore illicit activity don’t stay untouchable forever.
Blockchain infrastructure provider Figment has been selected as the staking provider for 3iQ’s newly approved Solana exchange-traded fund (ETF), underscoring Canada’s continued efforts toward adoption of digital asset financial products.
Figment will enable institutional staking for the 3iQ Solana (SOL) Staking ETF, which launches on the Toronto Stock Exchange on April 16 under the ticker SOLQ, the companies said in a statement. In addition to 3iQ, Figment provides staking infrastructure solutions to more than 700 clients.
The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), a provincial regulator, green-lighted 3iQ’s SOL fund on April 14. The approval was also extended to other fund managers seeking to offer SOL ETFs, including Purpose, Evolve and CI.
It would take nearly three more years before spot Bitcoin ETFs were approved in the United States. Like their Canadian counterparts, the US ETFs saw overwhelming success in their first year, generating more than $38 billion in net inflows.
In October 2023, 3iQ launched an ETF tied to Ether (ETH), giving investors direct access to the smart contract platform. Unlike the Ether ETFs that US regulators approved the following year, 3iQ’s fund offers staking rewards.
As Cointelegraph recently reported, US regulators may be on the cusp of approving staking rewards after they authorized exchanges to list options contracts tied to ETH.
Synthetic stablecoin developer Ethena Labs is winding down its German operations less than a month after regulators identified “deficiencies” in its dollar-pegged USDe (USDE) stablecoin, signaling heightened scrutiny around crypto assets in Europe’s largest economy.
Ethena Labs reached an agreement with Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, also known as BaFin, to cease all operations of its local subsidiary, Ethena GmbH, according to an April 15 announcement.
As such, Ethena Labs “will no longer be pursuing MiCAR authorization in Germany,” the company said, referring to the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation.
The company reiterated that Ethena’s German subsidiary has not conducted any mint or redeem activity for USDe since March 21, the day BaFin halted the stablecoin’s activities. As Cointelegraph reported at the time, the German regulator identified compliance failures and potential securities law violations tied to USDe.
“All whitelisted mint and redeem users previously interacting with Ethena GmbH have at their request been onboarded with Ethena (BVI) Limited instead and have no ongoing relationship with Ethena GmbH whatsoever,” the company said.
Unlike popular stablecoins USDt (USDT) and USDC (USDC), Ethena’s USDe maintains its dollar peg through an automated delta-hedging strategy that includes a combination of spot holdings, onchain custody and liquidity buffers.
USDe is the fourth-largest stablecoin with a total circulating value of $4.9 billion, according to CoinMarketCap.
The $233-billion stablecoin market is dominated by USDT and USDC. Source: CoinMarketCap
To meet the new requirements, stablecoin issuers must have adequate reserves backing their tokens, ensure reserve assets are segregated from users’ assets and fulfill regular reporting obligations.
Patrick Hansen, Circle’s senior director of EU strategy and policy, told Cointelegraph that a total of 10 euro-pegged stablecoins and five US dollar-pegged stablecoins have been approved so far.
However, notably absent from the list is USDt issuer Tether, which has decided not to pursue MiCA registration at this time.
The crypto industry’s inability to access banking services still concerns many industry observers despite recent policy victories.
In past years, financial services firms and banks concerned about fiduciary risk, reporting liabilities and reputational risk often would refuse to offer service to crypto firms — i.e., “debanking” them.
Legislative efforts in the United States and Australia are attempting to remove these barriers for the crypto industry. In the former, legislators repealed guidelines that made it difficult for banks to custody crypto assets, as well as those stating that crypto carried “reputational risk” for banks. In the latter, the Labor Party has introduced a bill to create a legal framework for crypto, giving banks the clarity they need to interact with the crypto industry.
Despite these tangible efforts, some crypto industry observers say that the crypto’s debanking problem is far from over.
US crypto execs say debanking is still an issue
The crypto industry has long decried “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” its nickname for a suite of policies that they claim constrained the crypto industry from growing under the administration of former President Joe Biden. Among these were measures making it more difficult for crypto firms to access banking services.
The early days of the second administration of President Donald Trump have seen many of these repealed or changed. One of the first was the repeal of Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which required banks offering custody for customers’ cryptocurrencies to list them as liabilities on their balance sheets — this made it very difficult for banks to justify offering such services.
The administration also appointed a new head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Rodney Hood. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Bitcoin-focused policy organization Satoshi Action, told Cointelegraph that under Hood’s tenure, the OCC has already said banks can offer crypto-related services like custody, stablecoin reserves and blockchain participation.
“This opens the door for broader adoption of digital asset technology and custodial services by traditional financial institutions, signaling a major shift in how banks engage with crypto,” he said.
Despite these victories, Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank, said on March 21 that debanking is likely to remain a problem for crypto firms into 2026.
Long said the non-partisan board of governors of the Federal Reserve is “still controlled by Democrats,” alluding to Democrats’ more skeptical stance on crypto. Long claimed that “there are two crypto-friendly banks under examination by the Fed right now, and an army of examiners was sent into these banks, including the examiners from Washington, a literal army just smothering the banks.”
Long noted that Trump won’t be able to appoint a new Fed governor until January, meaning that, while other agencies may be more crypto-friendly, there are still roadblocks.
Australia’s Labor Party to create crypto framework
Stand With Crypto, the “grassroots” crypto advocacy organization started by Coinbase that has spread to the US, UK, Canada and Australia, said that “in Australia, debanking is quietly shutting out innovators and entrepreneurs — particularly in the crypto and blockchain space.”
In a post on X, the organization claimed that debanking results in “reputational damage, loss of revenue, increased operational costs, and inability to launch or sustain services.” It also claimed that it forces some companies to move offshore.
In response to these concerns, the ruling center-left Labor Party in Australia has proposed a new set of laws for the cryptocurrency industry. The changes to current financial services law seek to tackle the issue of debanking in the country’s cryptocurrency industry.
Edward Carroll, head of global markets and corporate finance at MHC Digital Group — an Australian crypto platform — told Cointelegraph that in Australia, debanking decisions were “not the result of regulatory directives.”
“Rather, they appear to stem from a more general sense of risk aversion due to the current lack of a clear regulatory framework.”
Carroll was optimistic about the Labor Party’s proactive stance. The major political parties were “showing a shift in sentiment and a shared commitment to establishing formal crypto regulation.”
“We are hopeful that this will give banks the confidence to reengage with crypto businesses that meet compliance standards,” he said.
Canada unlikely to relieve crypto firms
In Canada, “debanking remains a serious and ongoing challenge for the Canadian crypto industry,” according to Morva Rohani, executive director of the Canadian Web3 Council.
“While some firms have successfully established relationships with banking partners, many continue to face account closures or denials with little explanation or recourse,” she told Cointelegraph.
While debanking actions aren’t explicit, financial institutions’ interpretation of Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer regulations “creates a risk-averse environment where banks weigh compliance and reputational concerns against the relatively low revenue potential of crypto clients.”
The end result, per Rohani, is a systemic debanking problem for the digital assets industry.
But unlike in the US and Australia, the Canadian crypto industry may not find relief anytime soon. Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose more crypto-skeptic Liberal Party is surging in the polls ahead of the April 28 snap elections, is himself a crypto-skeptic.
Polls show Carney firmly in the lead. Source: Ipsos
Carney has stated that the future of money lies more in a “central bank stablecoin,” otherwise referred to as a central bank digital currency.
Rohani said that “no comprehensive legislative solution has been implemented” with regard to debanking. “A more structured approach, including mandated disclosure of reasons for account termination and regulatory oversight, is needed,” she said.
Critics claim crypto is “hijacking” the debanking issue
There is another side to the debanking debate, which claims that crypto’s debanking “problem” is a non-issue or a vehicle for crypto firms to get what they want in terms of regulation.
Molly White, the author of Web3 Is Going Just Great and the “Citation Needed” newsletter, has noted that, in the US at least, crypto firms have claimed to be victims of debanking while lauding Trump’s efforts to end protections for debanking at the same time.
In a Feb. 14 post, White stated that the crypto industry had “hijacked” the discussion around debanking, which contains legitimate concerns regarding access to financial services — particularly regarding discrimination due to race, religious identity or industry affiliation.
She claims the crypto industry has used debanking as a means to deflect legitimate regulatory inquiries into crypto companies’ compliance efforts.
Further of note is the fact that Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has applauded the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Elon Musk at the helm, to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
One of the CFPB’s responsibilities is to investigate claims of debanking. But when DOGE instructed the agency to halt all work, Armstrong said it was “100% the right call,” in addition to making dubious claims about the agency’s constitutionality.
In the meantime
Whether the industry’s debanking concerns stem from legitimate discrimination or an attempt at regulatory capture, crypto firms are developing solutions in the interim.
Porter said that, as an alternative to banking services, “many crypto companies have leaned on stablecoins as a primary tool for managing finances,” while others have worked with “smaller regional banks or specialized trust companies open to digital assets.”
Rohani said that this kind of “patchwork of relationships” can increase operational costs and risks and are “not sustainable long-term solutions for growth or to build a competitive, regulated industry.”
Porter concluded that the banking workarounds could actually strengthen the industry’s position, stating that they may “continue evolving into fully integrated relationships with traditional financial institutions, further cementing crypto’s place in mainstream finance.”