Circle defends USDC freeze policy after Drift exploit, calls for faster legal frameworks

ambcryptoPublicado a 2026-04-10Actualizado a 2026-04-10

Resumen

Circle has responded to criticism regarding its handling of illicit funds, particularly after the Drift Protocol exploit where over $270 million was drained. The company stated that it cannot freeze USDC assets without legal authorization from relevant authorities, emphasizing that freezing is a legal obligation, not a discretionary action. This follows a report alleging $420 million in compliance lapses due to delayed or absent freezes, including $230 million in USDC during the Drift incident. Circle argues that the mismatch between blockchain speed and legal processes creates structural gaps exploited by bad actors. The company calls for updated legal frameworks, such as the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts, to enable faster intervention while preserving due process and property rights.

Circle has responded to recent criticism over its handling of illicit fund flows. It argues that it cannot freeze assets without legal authorization, following scrutiny tied to the Drift Protocol exploit.

In a blog post published on 10 April, the company said its ability to freeze USDC is “not discretionary,” but instead depends on lawful orders from relevant authorities.

The statement comes days after an on-chain report alleged more than $420 million in compliance lapses linked to delayed or absent freezes.

“Freezing is a legal obligation, not a discretionary tool”

Circle pushed back on the idea that it can act unilaterally to block funds, stating that USDC operates within U.S. and European regulatory frameworks.

According to the company, freezing assets requires a formal legal process. Also, acting outside those constraints could undermine property rights and financial privacy.

The distinction is central to its response: while the technology enables blacklisting, Circle maintains that the decision to act must come from law enforcement or the courts, not the issuer itself.

Drift exploit brought response times into focus

The clarification follows criticism tied to the 1 April exploit of Drift Protocol, during which over $270 million was reportedly drained.

Reports claimed that more than $230 million in USDC was bridged across chains during the incident without being frozen. The event raised questions about how quickly issuers can respond in fast-moving exploit scenarios.

The report also cited past incidents — including Cetus, Mango Markets, and Nomad — where USDC-linked funds were allegedly frozen late or not at all.

Circle’s response does not directly address specific cases. Instead, it reframes the issue as a legal constraint rather than an operational failure.

A gap between technology and law

A key theme in Circle’s statement is what it describes as a mismatch between the speed of blockchain activity and the pace of legal processes.

While tools exist to intervene quickly, the company argues that current regulatory frameworks do not allow for rapid, coordinated action without due process.

This, it says, creates a structural gap that can be exploited by bad actors moving funds across chains in real time.

Policy push gains momentum

Circle explicitly linked the issue to ongoing regulatory efforts in the United States, including the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.

The company called for updated legal frameworks that would enable faster intervention while preserving due process, privacy, and property rights.

The timing is notable. Recent signals from U.S. officials, alongside a White House report challenging restrictions on stablecoin yield, suggest growing alignment within the executive branch on digital asset policy.


Final Summary

  • Circle says it cannot freeze USDC without legal orders, pushing back against criticism following the Drift exploit.
  • The company is calling for faster legal frameworks, linking enforcement challenges to ongoing U.S. regulatory efforts.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is Circle's stated reason for not freezing USDC assets unilaterally following incidents like the Drift Protocol exploit?

ACircle states that it cannot freeze USDC assets without lawful orders from relevant authorities, as its ability to freeze is a legal obligation, not a discretionary tool, and acting unilaterally could undermine property rights and financial privacy.

QHow much USDC was reportedly bridged across chains during the Drift Protocol exploit without being frozen, according to the article?

AReports claimed that more than $230 million in USDC was bridged across chains during the Drift Protocol exploit without being frozen.

QWhat does Circle identify as the key structural problem in responding to fast-moving exploits involving cross-chain fund transfers?

ACircle identifies a mismatch between the speed of blockchain activity and the pace of legal processes as the key structural problem, creating a gap that can be exploited by bad actors moving funds in real time.

QWhich specific U.S. regulatory acts does Circle link to its call for updated legal frameworks in the article?

ACircle links its call for updated legal frameworks to the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act in the United States.

QBesides the Drift exploit, which other past incidents are cited in the report as examples of alleged USDC freezing delays or failures?

AThe report also cited past incidents involving Cetus, Mango Markets, and Nomad where USDC-linked funds were allegedly frozen late or not at all.

Lecturas Relacionadas

From 'Old Dogs' to 'New Darlings': How AI is Revaluing Old Infrastructure, from Dell to Nokia

"Old Dogs" Become AI's New Darlings: Revaluing Legacy Infrastructure The AI investment narrative is shifting. Beyond the spotlight on core chipmakers like Nvidia, a new wave of interest is rising for legacy tech companies—Dell, HPE, Nokia, Cisco, Corning, Western Digital—once labeled as slow-growth, outdated stories. This resurgence stems from AI's evolution from model development to real-world deployment, creating massive demand for physical infrastructure. As AI moves into data center construction and enterprise adoption, the focus turns to who can actually build and deliver complex systems. These established players hold decades of experience in supply chains, integration, networking, and enterprise delivery—assets now critical for scaling AI. The revaluation can be grouped into three key infrastructure areas: 1. **Servers & Integration (e.g., Dell, HPE):** They are becoming essential system integrators, transforming GPUs into full-scale AI servers with networking, power, and cooling, then delivering them to clients. Strong recent earnings and AI-specific revenue/order growth for Dell and HPE underscore this shift. 2. **Networking & Connectivity (e.g., Corning, Nokia, Cisco):** As AI clusters grow, high-speed data transfer becomes paramount. Corning benefits from fiber demand for data center links, Nokia is exploring AI-integrated wireless networks (AI-RAN), and Cisco sees surging orders for data center switches—all critical for efficient AI operations. 3. **Storage (e.g., Western Digital, Seagate):** The AI data explosion requires vast capacity. Beyond high-speed memory (HBM), there's growing need for high-capacity HDDs to store training data, logs, video, and cold/archival data cost-effectively. This revaluation, however, is not a blanket endorsement. True reassessment requires concrete proof: AI-driven orders and revenue growth, upward revisions to company guidance, and sustainable improvements in profit quality, not just top-line sales. In essence, AI is not turning all old tech firms into high-growth stocks; it is selectively re-pricing the "old assets" of companies that are mission-critical for building the new AI infrastructure, transforming their legacy capabilities into renewed growth engines.

marsbitHace 7 min(s)

From 'Old Dogs' to 'New Darlings': How AI is Revaluing Old Infrastructure, from Dell to Nokia

marsbitHace 7 min(s)

Probability in the Price: How World Cup Odds Are Calculated

**The Probability in the Price: How World Cup Odds Are Calculated** Two major systems released their "championship probabilities" before the 2026 World Cup, and they disagreed on the favorite. Prediction market aggregators listed France at around **17%**, while the Opta supercomputer gave European champion Spain **16.1%**. These numbers look similar, but their production methods are fundamentally different. The market's **17%** is the **price** that clears after hundreds of millions of dollars in trading across platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi, where contracts trade between 0 and 100 cents, directly representing implied probability. This liquidity is provided by crypto-native market makers like Wintermute, though the market still has "the liquidity profile of an early-stage" asset class. In contrast, Opta's **16.1%** is a **simulated frequency**. Its model uses team data (including betting market odds as an input) to estimate match probabilities, then runs **10,000 full tournament simulations**, counting how often each team wins. Which is more accurate? There is **no rigorous, cross-tournament academic study** directly comparing their track records. However, a persistent **longshot bias**—where low-probability outcomes are systematically overvalued—observed in traditional betting for nearly a century, has also been found in modern crypto prediction markets. Research shows low-price contracts on Kalshi/Polymer less likely to pay out than their implied odds suggest. Unlike traditional bookmakers, prediction markets operate on **public blockchain ledgers**, making every transaction auditable and enabling such research. However, price formation is also influenced by **regulatory uncertainty**, as seen in recent US state-level bans and legal battles over jurisdiction. In summary, the "probability" you see is either a **market-clearing price** subject to behavioral biases and liquidity constraints, or a **model-simulated frequency** that partially incorporates market data. The question of which method is more reliable remains open, highlighting the importance of asking: **How was this number produced?**

marsbitHace 36 min(s)

Probability in the Price: How World Cup Odds Are Calculated

marsbitHace 36 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar DRIFT

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar Drift Protocol (DRIFT) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar Drift Protocol (DRIFT) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu Drift Protocol (DRIFT)Después de comprar tu Drift Protocol (DRIFT), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear Drift Protocol (DRIFT)Tradear fácilmente con Drift Protocol (DRIFT) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

300 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2024.12.11Actualizado en 2026.06.02

Cómo comprar DRIFT

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de DRIFT (DRIFT).

活动图片