Gnosis is considering a hard fork to recover funds from the Balancer hack. After the hack, ~$9.4M was frozen on Gnosis Chain via a soft fork. Funds cannot move from the attacker's address. The funds are stuck. Returning them to victims requires a hard fork. I think Gnosis clearly sits in the low-risk DeFi category (ironically), where protecting users comes first. Because Gnosis is positioning itself for neofinance and enterprise-focused Web3 services, not for Ethereum-style immutability absolutism. In any case, the damage to 'immutability' is already done. The soft fork happened. Choosing not to recover the funds now isn’t neutrality. And tbh, we’ve already seen similar censorship interventions elsewhere: Berachain and Sonic after the same Balancer hack, and Sui after the $162M Cetus exploit. But this fork sets a big precedent: Do we hard fork for every hack? Only if losses > 5% of TVL? Why not 3%? Can app devs start assuming the chain will step in if they mess up, lowering security standards? The hard fork and the debate will end up setting hard-fork precedent rules for other chains to follow.(Ignas | DeFi)