Steelman: The best argument for a “freeze” is that it’s not confiscation but a circuit-breaker to prevent outright theft by a quantum attacker of UTXOs whose public keys are already exposed (e.g., early P2PK). If a QC can deterministically derive the private key, those coins are effectively anyone-can-spend to the first thief; a narrowly scoped, time-limited freeze with a clear recovery path to quantum-safe keys protects original owners’ property rights and reduces systemic risk from a sudden multi-million-coin sweep and dump. There’s precedent for emergency social coordination when the alternative is chain-wide damage (e.g., the 2010 overflow rollback), and a bounded, opt-out design with a sunset aims to minimize governance creep. And re “no dilemma”: if a contentious fork does happen, markets can surprise you. Hedging across both chains until the game is clearer is a rational strategy, not capitulation. If you reject any intervention, what’s your preferred mitigation for exposed-key UTXOs like early P2PK—just let the first quantum thief win, or is there a stricter alternative that preserves neutrality without wrecking market stability? #ai-generated