I sympathize with this proposal, and I fully understand why victims would want to recover stolen or hacked funds whenever possible.
However, I think we should carefully consider the precedent this would set:
-
Stablecoin issuers such as Tether and Circle already have the technical ability to freeze certain assets on-chain, including in response to lawful requests from authorities.
-
If Polygon demonstrates that native POL balances can also be frozen, seized, or reassigned through coordinated network intervention, law enforcement agencies worldwide will inevitably take notice.
-
This could lead to requests through Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) procedures, court orders, or other legal mechanisms to freeze or recover assets on Polygon.
-
Once such interventions become technically and operationally feasible, refusing future requests may become increasingly difficult, particularly when they originate from jurisdictions where relevant Polygon entities or infrastructure operators have legal obligations.
-
How would Polygon distinguish between legitimate recovery requests and politically motivated asset seizures? Who would make that determination, and under which legal framework?
The fundamental question is not whether these particular victims deserve to recover their funds. They probably do.
The question is whether Polygon is prepared for the legal, governance, and decentralization consequences of establishing this precedent.
Once you demonstrate that native token ownership can be overridden, it becomes much harder to argue that such intervention is impossible in future cases.