Of course it’s a hack.. I doubt the exchange owners wanted to send their entire balance to the North Korean military. That the multisig signers were compromised is no different than if a bank CEO had his machine hacked and a wire initiated on his behalf.
> is no different than if a bank CEO had his machine hacked and a wire initiated on his behalf
Those are not equivalent because the traditional banking sector is less vulnerable to North Korea. In theory a bank could be drained of $1b via a misdirected wire, but in practice that kind of plan is hampered by real-world controls and limitations applicable to international banking.[1] North Korean hackers instead focus on what works, which is crypto.
Code is law: if the owners hadn't intended to fund North Korea, they wouldn't have done so. I hope you're not suggesting some kind of interventionist third party trying to revert what has already been inscribed on the blockchain?
