Presumably to try and reduce the chance of a mass panic among their users.

9 times out of 10 when an exchange or broker is "hacked" its been the operators of the exchange.

	▲	thephyber 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You have worded this like a fact, but this is your opinion.

mvdtnz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What do they care if there's a panic? They have "paused the sidechain". No one can act on their panic.

Wasn't this all supposed to be decentralized? How can a foundation choose to unilaterally "pause the sidechain"?

	▲	Kranar 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		BTC Liquid Network is not decentralized and does not purport to be. It's a federated sidechain, that is... it's a blockchain that runs alongside the Bitcoin blockchain (using a two-way peg that lock real BTC on the Bitcoin blockchain and issues an equivalent amount of Liquid BTC on the Liquid sidechain) but blocks can only be added to the Liquid Network sidechain by some of the handpicked members of the federation.
	▲	thephyber 11 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You are conflating the original BTC network and a lot of the other projects in the cryptocurrency / token / stable currency space. Every time there was a new token that was 80% reminded or was governed by a central company, the original cryptocurrency enthusiasts cried fowl. Most people don't read the fine print, don't read the founding white papers, and don't care about the differences between the protocols and the networks when they should.