Among those 16 networks are some such as BNB Chain, Linea, Sui and Aptos.
From Bybit they ask for more transparency about the intervention mechanisms in the networks.
A report published by the Bybit Lazarus Security Lab team revealed that 16 cryptocurrency networks include functions in their code that allow freezing or restricting user funds.
The study, titled “Blockchain Freezing Revealed: Examines the Impact of the Ability to Freeze Funds on Blockchain,” analyzed 166 cryptocurrency networks through a combination of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and manual review.
According to the researchers, in addition to those 16, another 19 networks could introduce similar functions with minor changes to your protocolindicating that the ability to intervene transactions is more widespread than previously believed.
The report distinguishes three main mechanisms for freezing funds:
- Coded logic (hardcoded freezing): The ability to freeze funds is written directly into the source code of the protocol, such as in BNB Chain or VeChain.
- Controls per configuration file (configuration-based freezing): Blocking capacity depends on parameters defined by the validators or foundations that manage the network, as in Sui and Aptos.
- Freezing through on-chain contracts (on-chain contract freezing): the freezing is carried out through smart contracts, automatic tools capable of executing a blocking order from the network itself, as in the HECO network.
The Bybit Lazarus Security Lab report details which networks incorporate or could incorporate these fund freezing mechanisms, as seen in the following image:
According to the analysis, among those 16 are: BNB Chain, Linea, Sui, Aptos, VeChain, XDC, CHILIZ, VIC, EOS, WAXP and HECO.
Regarding the other 19 additional networks, some of them are Arbitrum, Cosmos, Celestia, Manta and OKB, which could enable similar mechanisms with minor modifications to their protocol.
Cases in which freezes were applied
The report cites several precedents. In 2019, VeChain froze funds linked to a $6.6 million theft.
In 2022, BNB Chain used a built-in blacklist to stop the leak of funds after a 570 million attack on its bridge.
In the Solana ecosystem, Sui blocked 162 million stolen dollars during the attack on the Cetus protocol, and Aptos subsequently introduced blocking and blacklisting functions for similar cases.
According to the document, these tools function as “emergency mechanisms” to contain hacks and protect users.
However, they also reveal the existence of centralized controls that contradict the original idea of these networks as immutable systems without intermediaries.
Bybit’s head of risk and security, David Zong, opined as follows:
Blockchain was built on the principle of decentralization, but many networks are developing pragmatic security mechanisms to respond quickly to threats.
David Zong, head of risk and security at Bybit.
Transparency and governance in debate
The study notes that the Bybit exchange security team developed an automated system to detect code modules that enable “blacklist” functions, transaction filtering or configuration updates.
The findings were then manually verified to ensure accuracy.
In their conclusions, the researchers argue that transparency over intervention capabilities should be a central pillar of governance in blockchains.
In addition, they urge projects to Clearly publish whether or not your networks can freeze fundsand under what circumstances.
«The future of the crypto ecosystem depends on trust […] As the sector matures, having transparent security mechanisms will help build trust between users and institutions,” the report indicates.
The Bybit report thus opens a crucial debate: can a network be truly decentralized if it retains the ability to intervene in its users’ funds?
The answer could redefine the way sovereignty and security are understood within the cryptocurrency universe.