All news is rigorously fact-checked and reviewed by leading blockchain experts and seasoned industry insiders.
- Arbitrum said it has frozen $71 million in ETH linked to the Kelp DAO exploit by moving the funds to an intermediary wallet.
- The funds will remain locked unless further action is approved through Arbitrum governance, with law enforcement involved in the response.
Arbitrum has frozen $71 million worth of ETH tied to the Kelp DAO exploit, stepping in with an emergency action that immediately raises the usual DeFi tension between rapid intervention and chain neutrality.
In a post on X on Tuesday, the network said its Security Council moved the funds into an intermediary frozen wallet. According to the statement, the action did not affect any other part of the chain’s state and did not impact other Arbitrum users or applications.
The frozen funds now sit in governance limbo
For now, the ETH is not going anywhere. Arbitrum said the assets will remain frozen unless a further step is approved through the network’s governance process, which means the emergency intervention has bought time, but not yet resolved the larger question of what comes next.
That matters because once stolen funds are frozen onchain, the technical challenge quickly turns into a governance one. Who decides the final disposition of the assets, under what standard, and how much precedent does that create for future incidents?
Arbitrum’s statement suggested the Security Council did not act alone. The team said the move was made with input from law enforcement regarding the exploiter’s identity, while also weighing the need to protect the integrity of the Arbitrum ecosystem without disrupting unrelated users.
The Lazarus angle gives the move extra weight
The response also lands against a more serious attribution backdrop. Preliminary findings from LayerZero suggested the Kelp DAO attack was likely linked to North Korea’s Lazarus Group, one of the best-known state-backed actors in crypto crime.
That shifts the tone. Freezing funds tied to a routine exploit is one thing. Freezing assets potentially linked to a state-backed hacking group is another, especially when law enforcement is already involved.
In practical terms, Arbitrum appears to be arguing that this was a contained intervention, narrowly targeted and carefully scoped. Still, the incident is likely to sharpen a debate that keeps returning in crypto. Decentralized systems may prefer minimal intervention in theory, but when tens of millions in stolen assets are sitting onchain, theory tends to meet a much harder test.
