2026-01-12 07:23:26

The centralization dilemma of stablecoins has once again become prominent. Tether recently froze over $182 million worth of USDT within 24 hours, involving 5 wallet addresses on the Tron chain. This move has sparked industry reflection: although stablecoins are designed with the expectation of resisting censorship, in practice, their highly centralized features have become a double-edged sword. It is precisely this centralized architecture that gives issuers like Tether the power to freeze funds, which has also led to stablecoins being widely used in illegal cryptocurrency transactions—centralized mechanisms are both risk control tools and vulnerabilities that can be exploited.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OnchainUndercover

· 23h ago

Here we go again with this set? Freezing Tether is just freezing it, what’s it called then—still a stablecoin? It should have been renamed "Censorship Coin" a long time ago. --- $182 million can be frozen just like that. Is this the freedom of Web3? Laughable. --- Centralized risk control, decentralized facade—this is the game stablecoins are playing. --- Double-edged sword? Honestly, Tether calls the shots, and we’re all just the little guys. --- If you want censorship-free, you have to accept the risks. If you want risk control, don’t claim decentralization. You can’t have both. --- That’s why I now trust on-chain assets more—at least no one can freeze them at will. --- Tether is playing this move skillfully—freezing dirty money while maintaining its image, a win-win. --- It's really ironic—anti-censorship dreams die in the face of centralized reality.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWitch

· 23h ago

Frozen $182 million? Tether's move—where's the promised decentralization? Isn't this just the same as banks do? --- The ideal of censorship resistance has been shattered by centralization, quite ironic. --- Laughing to death, wanting to prevent illegal flows but also maintain decentralization—how is that even possible? --- Stablecoins are essentially compromises; they are a double-edged sword and quite standard. --- Tether's power is too great—doesn't that just highlight the problem? --- So, we still have to rely on algorithmic stablecoins, although few have survived. --- Freeze authority = synonym for centralization. How can anyone believe this thing is fully decentralized?

View OriginalReply0

PortfolioAlert

· 23h ago

I knew it, the issue of Tether freezing funds has long ceased to be news. The key point is that our initial reasons for choosing stablecoins have all been proven wrong. Speaking of which, 182 million being frozen just like that—this power is too great, it feels more ruthless than a bank. Centralization to prevent illegal flows, but it ended up becoming a knife for cutting leeks—ironic.

View OriginalReply0

RugPullSurvivor

· 23h ago

1. Laughing to death, they praised anti-censorship before, now they’re frozen faster than banks? This is the Web3 freedom dream haha 2. 182 million just froze, Tether says they have no authority but hold the life-and-death token, we’ve all been played 3. So what exactly is stable about stablecoins... once centralized entities rug, everything is gone 4. That’s why I never touch things issued by exchanges, the risk is too high 5. Double-edged sword? Basically pseudo-decentralization, regulation is still regulation 6. Wait, are those frozen addresses illegal or just frozen arbitrarily? Insufficient information 7. Tether, you’re the boss, freeze whoever you want, that’s how our money is in their hands 8. How many times has the excuse of preventing illegal fund flows been used? Is it really effective to reflect on now? 9. Centralized yet claiming to be free, if you can’t have both, don’t pretend 10. Looks like I need to find truly decentralized stablecoins, these are too dangerous

View OriginalReply0

ClassicDumpster

· 23h ago

Ha, Tether is freezing funds again. Is this what you call decentralization? Laughing to death --- 1.82 billion just gone, feels like a bank, why boast about being censorship-resistant --- To put it simply, stablecoins are just centralized toys. Tether can lock funds with a single word. Who would dare to hold large amounts? --- So the question is, are we using stablecoins for decentralization or just putting a new coat of paint on a central bank? --- If anti-money laundering measures require freezing funds, what about the safety of ordinary users' funds? It feels like too much power with no checks. --- A double-edged sword? Sounds good, but in reality, Tether calls the shots. --- Here we go again, under the guise of freezing, they can do whatever they want. Who can audit Tether?

View OriginalReply0

MetaMaximalist

· 23h ago

ngl this is exactly why i've been saying stablecoins are just traditional finance wearing a costume... the irony of "decentralized" money that gets frozen on a whim is *chef's kiss* predictable. tether freezing 182m is basically admitting they were never about the protocol, just regulatory theater lmao

Reply0

ILCollector

· 23h ago

Here we go again, Tether's freeze operation... Wasn't it supposed to be decentralized? But then they freeze 182 million just like that— isn't this the same old traditional finance approach? I've known for a long time that stablecoins are highly centralized, but seeing the money frozen still feels a bit hopeless.

View OriginalReply0