Arbitrum Security Council Member Demands USDC Boycott Over Circle's Inaction on Hackers

Griff Green Accuses Circle of Prioritizing Profit Over Security

Arbitrum Security Council member Griff Green has launched a scathing attack on Circle, the issuer of the USDC stablecoin. Green alleges that the company deliberately refuses to freeze hacker funds, prioritizing its own profits over the security of the broader crypto ecosystem.

«Arbitrum Security Council Member: Circle Is Clearly Not Full of Good Men. Arbitrum Security Council member Griff Green states that Tether actively freezes hacker funds, while Circle does nothing. He believes Tether consists of traditional crypto natives who value…» — Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain), original post

Green drew a direct comparison between the two largest stablecoin issuers. According to him, Tether actively freezes assets linked to North Korean hackers and has already recovered more than $70 million in stolen funds. Circle, on the other hand, allegedly does nothing in response to such incidents.

Why This Matters

Green's statement highlights a fundamental divide in the stablecoin industry — the contrasting approaches of major issuers toward combating cybercrime. USDC and USDT dominate the stablecoin market, and their issuers' policies on freezing funds directly affect the security of the entire crypto infrastructure. When a major stablecoin issuer declines to act against stolen assets, it effectively makes life easier for hackers and erodes trust in DeFi.

The fact that this criticism comes from a member of the security council of one of Ethereum's leading L2 networks lends it significant weight. Arbitrum processes substantial stablecoin transaction volumes, and a governance figure's public stance could influence market sentiment around USDC.

A Cultural Divide Between Issuers

Green attributed the behavioral difference between the two companies to their corporate culture. He described Tether as having been built by "crypto-native" individuals who share the industry's core values and are genuinely invested in protecting it. Circle, by contrast, was likened to Goldman Sachs — a firm driven purely by financial metrics.

In Green's view, Circle sees no financial incentive in freezing hacker funds and therefore takes no action. He framed it bluntly: if a company has the ability to address a problem, it bears responsibility for doing so. While Tether blocks accounts tied to North Korea extensively, Circle remains passive.

Call for Market Pressure

As a concrete measure, Green urged users to sell their USDC holdings. He believes that only market signals — declining demand and capital outflows — can compel Circle to reconsider its stance and genuinely engage in the fight against hackers who, in his words, are "destroying users' portfolios and the whole world."

Green is not alone in his criticism. In April, investors in Drift Protocol filed a class-action lawsuit against Circle, accusing the company of aiding hackers and negligence. This reflects mounting pressure on the USDC issuer from both the crypto community and affected users, suggesting the controversy is far from over.