I'm curious what makes this a centralized action? Many independent (decentralized?) entities debated and used social consensus to come to the decision to halt the chain to isolate further potential damage.
Like them or hate them, I'm intrigued where the centralized line in the sand was crossed
A relatively small group of powerful people shut the chain down. This was not a consensus action amongst token holders, network users or any other group, their consent was not required. Power is held by this group of (130?) people, it seems pretty centralised to me, basically an oligarchy.
Like them or hate them, I'm intrigued where the centralized line in the sand was crossed