@SCBuergel thank you again for initiating this consultation! Following up on the discussion, I am submitting the following structured proposal for legitimate intervention criteria.
tl;dr
The key finding from researching emergency governance across 166 blockchains is that 21% already have intervention capabilities, but most lack transparent criteria for their use. This is a proposal for:
- Hierarchy of Precision — Graduated response levels (Network → Account)
- Legitimacy Conditions — Transparency, Proportionality, Accountability, Due Process
- Optimistic Freeze — Fast action with DAO ratification
The Problem (Data-Backed)
| Finding | Source |
|---|---|
| $91.3 billion in crypto losses (2014-2025) | LIF Database (759 incidents) |
| 21% of chains have freezing capability | Bybit Security Lab (Nov 2025) |
| AI agents can execute 55.8% of 2025 exploits | Anthropic Red Team (Dec 2025) |
| Exploit potential doubles every 1.3 months | Anthropic |
The implication is that pre-defined intervention criteria are necessary to respond to AI-accelerated attacks without improvisation.
Proposal: Hierarchy of Precision
Instead of binary thinking (Halt vs. Nothing), define graduated levels:
| Level | Scope | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Network (Chain Halt) | Berachain Nov 2025 |
| 2 | Asset (Token Freeze) | Sui Cetus freeze |
| 3 | Protocol (dApp Pause) | Balancer pool pause |
| 4 | Module (Feature Pause) | Swap disabled only |
| 5 | Account (Targeted) | Attacker wallet blocked |
The Principle behind the Hierarchy of Precision is to use the least restrictive intervention that achieves security.
Legitimacy Conditions
For any intervention to be legitimate:
- Transparency - Criteria documented before use
- Proportionality - Scope matches severity
- Accountability - Clear authority, penalties for misuse
- Due Process - Appeals mechanism exists
Optimistic Freeze Model
Anomaly → Emergency Council (fast) or a Sentinel → Immediate Pause
↓
DAO Vote (24-48h) ← ratify or revert
- If ratified: intervention confirmed
- If reverted: council members may review
Addressing Concerns
@mfw78’s human factors dimension:
- Completely agree! “Improvisation is a symptom of under-resourcing.”
- A framework without resourced teams to execute it is fragile.
- I support explicit budgeting for:
- Headcount with depth (rotation during extended ops)
- Surge capacity (retainers, partnerships)
- Training & exercises (including fatigue recognition)
- Recovery time between incidents
- The “just culture” principle from aviation is directly applicable here
This proposal makes everything public and contestable.
- 21% of chains already freeze. This framework seeks document and bring accountability to the space
- GnosisDAO is pioneering the path for a formalised system the industry can adopt or adapt
On TheVoidFreak’s point on syncing: you’re right that coordination across forum/discord/TG is essential! Or a single canonical document (github) linked from all channels. I have also created a google doc here for anyone to sync up, critique, drop comments and suggest improvements, and ask questions, all of which will hopefully inform the final drafted framework from @SCBuergel and GIP draft
Friederike’s AMA comments (Decision Parameters):
- I have added a section including some specific parameters mentioned by Friederike (exploit type, protocol maturity, audit status, etc.)
- These factors are critical for determining proportionality within the proposed Hierarchy of Precision.
Proposed Next Steps
- Review this framework and provide feedback in this thread
- Integrate all or part into the working group’s framework
- Draft GIP formalising the Framework
- Define Emergency Council or other [sub]governance body composition or sentinel and authority
Looking forward to building this together!