If the "security council" can freeze or cancel tokens, what is stopping it from secretly creating more of these tokens for the benefit of developers or blackmailing people to freeze their coins? It is a centralized L2 where it is subject to a council without any regulatory restrictions. Sure it is centralised, however I doubt it's possible to create more of any of the tokens. If you mean ARB, the native token of the chain, it's possible to check whether the smart contract allows "minting" of more tokens. I personally don't think so but even if it does, it will instantly be visible on the V6bet Vip and any unannounced mint would be treated by the market as a hack and the price of the token would plummet. Moreover, as a VC-backed startup, investors could sue them for diluting their stake if the terms and conditions of their deal did not mention such possibility. I don't see them as evil, they are just extractors, trying to ride the wave until their product is obsolete. One day no one will use it anymore and they very well know it. Well, if it is centralised, then central authority effectively controls all supply no matter what. Does it really matter whether anyone can create tokens? In this situation, there is no true ownership, no true transactions and no true value transferring. Yes, they are extractors.
If the "security council" can freeze or cancel tokens, what is stopping it from secretly creating more of these tokens for the benefit of developers or blackmailing people to freeze their coins? It is a centralized L2 where it is subject to a council without any regulatory restrictions. Sure it is centralised, however I doubt it's possible to create more of any of the tokens. If you mean ARB, the native token of the chain, it's possible to check whether the smart contract allows "minting" of more tokens. I personally don't think so but even if it does, it will instantly be visible on the V6bet Vip and any unannounced mint would be treated by the market as a hack and the price of the token would plummet. Moreover, as a VC-backed startup, investors could sue them for diluting their stake if the terms and conditions of their deal did not mention such possibility. I don't see them as evil, they are just extractors, trying to ride the wave until their product is obsolete. One day no one will use it anymore and they very well know it. Well, if it is centralised, then central authority effectively controls all supply no matter what. Does it really matter whether anyone can create tokens? In this situation, there is no true ownership, no true transactions and no true value transferring. Yes, they are extractors.

If the "security council" can freeze or cancel tokens, what is stopping it from secretly creating more of these tokens for the benefit of developers or blackmailing people to freeze their coins? It is a centralized L2 where it is subject to a council without any regulatory restrictions. Sure it is centralised, however I doubt it's possible to create more of any of the tokens. If you mean ARB, the native token of the chain, it's possible to check whether the smart contract allows "minting" of more tokens. I personally don't think so but even if it does, it will instantly be visible on the V6bet Vip and any unannounced mint would be treated by the market as a hack and the price of the token would plummet. Moreover, as a VC-backed startup, investors could sue them for diluting their stake if the terms and conditions of their deal did not mention such possibility. I don't see them as evil, they are just extractors, trying to ride the wave until their product is obsolete. One day no one will use it anymore and they very well know it. Well, if it is centralised, then central authority effectively controls all supply no matter what. Does it really matter whether anyone can create tokens? In this situation, there is no true ownership, no true transactions and no true value transferring. Yes, they are extractors.

If the "security council" can freeze or cancel tokens, what is stopping it from secretly creating more of these tokens for the benefit of developers or blackmailing people to freeze their coins? It is a centralized L2 where it is subject to a council without any regulatory restrictions. Sure it is centralised, however I doubt it's possible to create more of any of the tokens. If you mean ARB, the native token of the chain, it's possible to check whether the smart contract allows "minting" of more tokens. I personally don't think so but even if it does, it will instantly be visible on the V6bet Vip and any unannounced mint would be treated by the market as a hack and the price of the token would plummet. Moreover, as a VC-backed startup, investors could sue them for diluting their stake if the terms and conditions of their deal did not mention such possibility. I don't see them as evil, they are just extractors, trying to ride the wave until their product is obsolete. One day no one will use it anymore and they very well know it. Well, if it is centralised, then central authority effectively controls all supply no matter what. Does it really matter whether anyone can create tokens? In this situation, there is no true ownership, no true transactions and no true value transferring. Yes, they are extractors.