The crypto community is split over whether Ethereum should roll back its blockchain after Bybit’s $1.4 billion hack. Some experts, like Arthur Hayes and Samson Mow, support the idea, arguing that Ethereum set a precedent in 2016 with the DAO hack rollback. Others strongly oppose it, warning that such a move could harm the network’s credibility. A blockchain rollback would undo confirmed transactions, returning the system to a previous state. While this method can reverse major exploits, it remains controversial because blockchains are built on the principle that transactions should be final and unchangeable. Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, supports the rollback, saying that Ethereum abandoned immutability in 2016 when it undid the DAO hack. He believes another intervention should be considered. Samson Mow also backs the idea, stating that it could stop the stolen funds from being used for illegal purposes, possibly even financing North Korea’s nuclear program. However, others strongly disagree. The pseudonymous trader Borovik argues that reversing transactions would destroy trust in Ethereum. Bitcoin advocate Jimmy Song also rejects the idea, pointing out that the DAO hack allowed for a rollback within 30 days, while the Bybit hack is already final, making a reversal impractical. Meanwhile, Ethereum supporter Adriano Feria offers an alternative view. He suggests that Bybit could have avoided the loss by using a Layer 2 solution with reversible transactions. He argues that blockchain adoption will struggle unless some form of reversibility is introduced. Without it, he warns, people may prefer traditional financial systems that already offer transaction reversals. This debate raises a critical question for Ethereum: should it stick to immutability or intervene in extreme cases? While some see a rollback as a necessary solution to recover lost funds, others worry it could set a dangerous precedent, threatening the network’s decentralization and long-term trust. A blockchain rollback would undo confirmed transactions, returning the system to a previous state. While this method can reverse major exploits, it remains controversial because blockchains are built on the principle that transactions should be final and unchangeable. Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, supports the rollback, saying that Ethereum abandoned immutability in 2016 when it undid the DAO hack. He believes another intervention should be considered. Samson Mow also backs the idea, stating that it could stop the stolen funds from being used for illegal purposes, possibly even financing North Korea’s nuclear program. However, others strongly disagree. The pseudonymous trader Borovik argues that reversing transactions would destroy trust in Ethereum. Bitcoin advocate Jimmy Song also rejects the idea, pointing out that the DAO hack allowed for a rollback within 30 days, while the Bybit hack is already final, making a reversal impractical. Meanwhile, Ethereum supporter Adriano Feria offers an alternative view. He suggests that Bybit could have avoided the loss by using a Layer 2 solution with reversible transactions. He argues that blockchain adoption will struggle unless some form of reversibility is introduced. Without it, he warns, people may prefer traditional financial systems that already offer transaction reversals. This debate raises a critical question for Ethereum: should it stick to immutability or intervene in extreme cases? While some see a rollback as a necessary solution to recover lost funds, others worry it could set a dangerous precedent, threatening the network’s decentralization and long-term trust. Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, supports the rollback, saying that Ethereum abandoned immutability in 2016 when it undid the DAO hack. He believes another intervention should be considered. Samson Mow also backs the idea, stating that it could stop the stolen funds from being used for illegal purposes, possibly even financing North Korea’s nuclear program. However, others strongly disagree. The pseudonymous trader Borovik argues that reversing transactions would destroy trust in Ethereum. Bitcoin advocate Jimmy Song also rejects the idea, pointing out that the DAO hack allowed for a rollback within 30 days, while the Bybit hack is already final, making a reversal impractical. Meanwhile, Ethereum supporter Adriano Feria offers an alternative view. He suggests that Bybit could have avoided the loss by using a Layer 2 solution with reversible transactions. He argues that blockchain adoption will struggle unless some form of reversibility is introduced. Without it, he warns, people may prefer traditional financial systems that already offer transaction reversals. This debate raises a critical question for Ethereum: should it stick to immutability or intervene in extreme cases? While some see a rollback as a necessary solution to recover lost funds, others worry it could set a dangerous precedent, threatening the network’s decentralization and long-term trust. However, others strongly disagree. The pseudonymous trader Borovik argues that reversing transactions would destroy trust in Ethereum. Bitcoin advocate Jimmy Song also rejects the idea, pointing out that the DAO hack allowed for a rollback within 30 days, while the Bybit hack is already final, making a reversal impractical. Meanwhile, Ethereum supporter Adriano Feria offers an alternative view. He suggests that Bybit could have avoided the loss by using a Layer 2 solution with reversible transactions. He argues that blockchain adoption will struggle unless some form of reversibility is introduced. Without it, he warns, people may prefer traditional financial systems that already offer transaction reversals. This debate raises a critical question for Ethereum: should it stick to immutability or intervene in extreme cases? While some see a rollback as a necessary solution to recover lost funds, others worry it could set a dangerous precedent, threatening the network’s decentralization and long-term trust. Meanwhile, Ethereum supporter Adriano Feria offers an alternative view. He suggests that Bybit could have avoided the loss by using a Layer 2 solution with reversible transactions. He argues that blockchain adoption will struggle unless some form of reversibility is introduced. Without it, he warns, people may prefer traditional financial systems that already offer transaction reversals. This debate raises a critical question for Ethereum: should it stick to immutability or intervene in extreme cases? While some see a rollback as a necessary solution to recover lost funds, others worry it could set a dangerous precedent, threatening the network’s decentralization and long-term trust. This debate raises a critical question for Ethereum: should it stick to immutability or intervene in extreme cases? While some see a rollback as a necessary solution to recover lost funds, others worry it could set a dangerous precedent, threatening the network’s decentralization and long-term trust.