The recent incident involving the Sui blockchain highlights ongoing challenges within the blockchain industry, particularly regarding the balance between decentralization and security. Due to current technological limitations, blockchains cannot operate flawlessly as immutable systems and require mechanisms for emergency intervention and correction. The Sui blockchain's decision to implement a pause function in response to a hack reflects this reality. Experts argue that such centralized controls can be beneficial, providing faster, user-friendly solutions and enhanced protection against hackers. This approach sets a precedent that may deter future attacks, as allowing hackers to retain stolen funds undermines the purpose of having mutable, semi-centralized chains. While full decentralization remains the ultimate goal, many agree that most blockchains are not yet sufficiently decentralized to forgo such protective measures. The consensus is that failing to protect users when possible not only is imprudent but could also entail criminal liability. Industry voices also note that centralized control over bridge funds, as seen in platforms like Coinbase and Ethereum Layer 2 solutions, is an accepted practice that leverages the benefits of centralization without abandoning the broader decentralization objective.