Last week, something confusing happened in the crypto space—a major platform WLFI froze 372 wallets all at once, claiming they were "suspected of being connected to phishing attacks." Even more outrageous, the publicly transparent transaction address of Tron founder Sun Yuchen was affected.

Here’s how it apparently unfolded: In early September, WLFI's risk control system triggered alarms for three consecutive days, claiming that these wallets had dealings with recent phishing incidents, involving over $2.3 million. Why was Sun Yuchen’s wallet frozen? Simply because it had received 0.3 BTC (about $6,800) from a "suspicious address" in the past. No warning, no communication—just an outright freeze.

WLFI later issued an official statement: "We do not target any individual; Mr. Sun’s wallet indeed has clear risk associations." They also promised to unfreeze innocent users within 48 hours. However, this explanation clearly failed to quell the controversy—almost all comments questioned:

"What exactly is the standard for 'risk association'?"
"If the platform can freeze assets at will, who guarantees the safety of my assets?"
"If just receiving a suspicious transfer is enough to freeze an account, who would still dare to use on-chain wallets?"

Honestly, the issues exposed here are much deeper than they appear. Where should the boundaries of centralized platform risk control be? How can user asset autonomy be protected? If these questions aren’t addressed, similar "mistakes" are likely to happen again.

What do you think about this incident? Is the platform’s cautious approach excessive, or is it necessary?