Omid Malekan@malekanoms · X· 16 天前AI 评分 51Omid Malekan 认为，NEAR Intents 拦截并处理交易的能力，会带来用户诉讼、执法追责、制裁执行和遭受攻击等风险。他指出，若系统需要在交易不顺利时依赖中心化控制，就应正视其许可制属性，并质疑这种做法与去中心化设计是否相容。
Yes, but:
1) Anyone who ever feels wronged by Near intents could now sue them. There is clear precedence that they have both the ability and the desire to decide what’s a good transaction and what’s a bad one. This will happen.
2) Any judge, law enforcement official, or prosecutor who wants to go after Near Intents (or its governors and participants) for facilitating illicit use can do so and accuse them of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. This will happen. (They went after Roman for a system he didn’t even control)
3) Any government that imposes sanctions will now expect near intents to enforce them. This will happen.
4) Any hacker (enabled by a frontier model) can now target Near Intents as it has demonstrated centralized controls.
You could argue all of this is tolerable or even “worth it”. That’s a reasonable argument. But why bother with the decentralization theater? Just build a fully permissioned system and do KYC.
No such thing as a system that’s only trustless when things go well.
In the last 48 hours, @near_intents: > Detected and blocked stolen funds from an exchange hack > Got exploited, patched within hours. $3.8M lost, all being refunded CEX hacks (~$5B) and bridge exploits (~$3.7B) have been the two worst loss vectors in crypto. Refreshing to see a team take ownership of crypto's biggest weakness.在 X 查看被引用的帖子
来源：Omid Malekan· x.com