Polygon Hard Fork Proposal Would Return 70.49 Million Frozen POL to Binance and Polymarket

A proposal now before the Polygon community would take one of the most drastic steps available to a blockchain network in order to undo the effects of two thefts that took place on the same day. Published on November 4 on the Polygon Community Forum by the Polygon Labs validator support team, and drafted by the companies affected, the plan would use a hard fork to move approximately 70.49 million POL tokens out of five wallets linked to attackers and into recovery wallets controlled by Binance and Polymarket. The tokens have been frozen in practical terms since the incidents, with block producers asked to refuse to process transactions from the attacker wallets, but the fork would go further by rewriting balances at a chosen block so that the funds formally change hands.

The scale of the sums involved helps explain why such an extreme remedy is even being discussed. At the POL price on October 29 of 0.0924 dollars, the 70.49 million tokens at issue were worth roughly 6.5 million dollars. That valuation is tied to a single date given in the proposal materials, and it does not by itself fix the value of the tokens today or at any future fork block, since market prices move continuously. What matters for the proposal is not the dollar figure alone but the quantity of tokens and the wallets that currently hold them. Four of the five wallets are said to hold approximately 23.86 million POL remaining from the Polymarket incident, while the fifth wallet, linked to Binance, is said to hold approximately 46.63 million POL. Together those holdings account for the total at the centre of the proposal.

The two incidents behind the proposal are described in different terms, which reflects the different ways the thefts unfolded. In the Polymarket case, the account given in the proposal materials is that hackers broke into an outside script and attacked traders while they were logged in, leaving a residue of tokens in wallets now identified as attacker-controlled. In the Binance case, the scale reported by Cryptopolitan was far larger in headline terms, with a hack figure of 6.3 billion dollars cited for that incident, although the portion relevant to this Polygon proposal is the POL balance now sitting in the fifth wallet. The proposal does not ask readers to treat those two events as identical, and it presents the fork as a single technical remedy for two separate losses that happen to share a network and a date.

Freezing the wallets was the first response. Block producers on Polygon were asked to block the attacker wallets, a step that can prevent funds from moving onward but does not by itself restore them to their previous owners. A block on processing is a defensive measure, and it depends on continued cooperation. A hard fork, by contrast, would change the state of the chain itself at a chosen block, removing all POL from the five wallets and adding the same amount to recovery wallets. That distinction is central to the debate that is likely to follow, because one approach holds funds in place while the other actively reassigns them through a coordinated upgrade of the network software.

The proposal is explicit that this would not be a routine procedure. It describes a fork of this kind as an extreme step that should not be reproduced commonly, a framing that appears designed to limit the precedent it might set. That language matters because blockchain communities often worry that any intervention to reverse a theft, however sympathetic the victims, could open the door to future interventions in less clear-cut cases. By presenting the fork as exceptional, the drafters are inviting the community to weigh the particular facts of these two incidents rather than endorsing a general power to rewrite balances whenever funds are stolen.

Why a Polygon hard fork is different from an ordinary upgrade

Most network upgrades change rules for future transactions, improve performance, or add features, and they leave existing balances untouched. A hard fork that removes tokens from specific wallets and credits them elsewhere is different in kind, because it reaches back into the existing state of the chain and rewrites it. Supporters of such a step argue that the chain is ultimately a social system as well as a technical one, and that the community that maintains it can collectively decide to correct a theft when the evidence is clear and the victims are identified. Critics argue that the same power, once exercised, weakens the assurance that balances cannot be altered by collective decision, even when that decision is taken through legitimate governance. The Polygon proposal sits directly on that fault line, and the debate is likely to turn less on the mechanics of the fork than on which of those principles the community considers more important in this instance.

How the frozen POL recovery would work at the fork block

The technical description in the proposal is straightforward in outline, even if the implementation requires care. At a chosen block, the fork would remove all POL from the five identified wallets and add the same amount to recovery wallets controlled by Binance and Polymarket. The phrase chosen block matters because it fixes the exact point in chain history at which the change takes effect, allowing all nodes that adopt the upgraded software to apply the same change at the same point and remain in consensus. Nodes that did not upgrade would follow a different version of history, which is why coordination among validators and other network participants is essential to any hard fork.

What Polygon governance must decide

Polygon governance is not being asked to decide only whether Binance and Polymarket deserve to recover funds. It is being asked to decide whether the evidence is sufficient, whether the process has been transparent, and whether the exceptional nature of the step is credible. The conditions attached to the proposal reflect that broader test. Requiring both incident reports to stay public ensures that the justification remains open to scrutiny after the decision, not only before it. Requiring those reports to match on-chain data ensures that the justification is not merely a narrative but a claim that can be checked against the ledger itself. Together those conditions are intended to give governance a verifiable basis rather than a purely sympathetic one.

Risks and limits of rewriting balances by fork

Any hard fork carries operational risk, and a balance-rewriting fork adds a distinct form of risk on top of the usual coordination challenge. If the list of wallets or recovery addresses contained an error, the fork would enshrine that error in the chain state. If some validators failed to upgrade in time, the network could temporarily split, with different participants following different histories until coordination was restored. If the testing on Amoy revealed unexpected interactions with other parts of the Polygon system, the timetable could slip. Those are ordinary fork risks, but their consequences are sharper here because the change directly affects identifiable holdings rather than only future rules.

FAQ

What is the Polygon hard fork proposal?

The proposal would use a hard fork to remove approximately 70.49 million POL from five wallets linked to attackers and credit the same amount to recovery wallets controlled by Binance and Polymarket. It was published on November 4 on the Polygon Community Forum by the Polygon Labs validator support team and drafted by the affected companies. The fork would take effect at a chosen block and would proceed only if Polygon governance approves it and both incident reports stay public and match on-chain data.

How much POL is involved and how is it divided?

Approximately 70.49 million POL is involved in total, worth roughly 6.5 million dollars at the October 29 POL price of 0.0924 dollars given in the proposal materials. Four wallets hold approximately 23.86 million POL left from the Polymarket incident, while a fifth wallet linked to Binance holds approximately 46.63 million POL. The fork would move each portion to the recovery wallet of the company associated with that incident.

What happened on October 29?

According to the proposal materials, the Polymarket incident involved hackers breaking into an outside script and attacking traders while they were logged in. The Binance incident was reported by Cryptopolitan with a hack figure of 6.3 billion dollars, although only the POL balance in the fifth wallet is at issue in this Polygon proposal. The tokens were stolen on October 29, and block producers were subsequently asked to block the attacker wallets from transacting.

When will the proposal be discussed and how long would implementation take?

The plan is to be presented on the Polygon Protocol Governance Call on November 5 at 14:30 UTC. If approved, approximately two weeks is described as workable to build and test the change on the Amoy testnet. Presentation on the call is not approval, and testing could reveal issues that affect the timetable. The fork would only proceed if governance approves and the public-report and on-chain-data conditions are met.

Why does the proposal call the fork an extreme step?

The proposal itself describes a fork that rewrites balances as an extreme step that should not be reproduced commonly. That framing acknowledges the concern that intervening to reverse a theft could set a precedent for future interventions, even in less clear-cut cases. By presenting the step as exceptional and attaching conditions around public reports and on-chain matching, the drafters invite the community to judge this case on its specific evidence rather than endorsing balance rewriting as a routine remedy.

Source: TradingKey/Cryptopolitan

Related reading on MM Crypto Analysis Web

• Pendle Trading Volume Hits a 30-Day High as Yield Demand Returns
• FBI Asks DeFi Operators to Block Hundreds of Binance Hack Addresses
• Arbitrum Council Moved $30 Million of Binance Hack Funds Without the Hacker’s Key

More in DeFi on MM Crypto Analysis Web.