A Polygon proposal calls for a one-time hard fork to move roughly 70.49 million POL from five transfer-restricted addresses into recovery wallets designated by Binance and Polymarket. The proposal values the funds at about $6.5 million. If approved, the plan could return control of those balances to the companies, but it would require a deliberate change to Polygon’s rules and would not guarantee that affected users are reimbursed.
- Reference balances: 23.86 million POL linked to Polymarket and 46.63 million linked to Binance.
- Conditional plan: Approval, wallet checks, testing and coordinated software upgrades are required.
- Central tension: Recovering the funds means overriding the usual rules for moving blockchain balances.
What the proposed fork would change
A proposal attributed to Parvez03, a member of the Polygon Labs Validator Support Team, describes a one-time hard fork of Polygon’s Proof-of-Stake network. Dated November 4, 2026, it lists reference balances of 23, 862, 736.07 POL across four Polymarket-linked addresses and 46, 626, 593.27 POL at one Binance-linked address. Together, that’s 70, 489, 329.34 POL.
The proposal puts the total value at about $6.5 million, using a POL price of $0.0924 on October 29, 2026. That is an indicative valuation in the proposal, not an independently verified price assessment.
These are reference balances, not guaranteed final transfer amounts. Under the proposed design, the network would use the balance at each address immediately before the activation block. The proposal calls for a fresh review before activation.
At the start of that block, before ordinary transactions execute, the change would set the specified balances to zero and credit the same amounts to recovery wallets designated by Binance and Polymarket. The proposal says this would not increase POL’s total supply. It covers native POL only, not other tokens held at those addresses, and would leave other major Polygon contracts and previously recorded transactions unchanged.
The funds would go to wallets controlled by the companies, not directly to affected users. The proposal requires the companies to prove control of those wallets and confirm the addresses in writing. It does not explain how either company would handle the recovered funds or resolve disputes over ownership or allocation.
Why a hard fork is being considered
Normally, moving funds from a blockchain address requires authorization from the private key that controls it. If an attacker holds that key, the affected party cannot simply send the assets elsewhere. The proposal’s solution is a protocol-level state change: under revised rules, the network itself would authorize the specified transfers.
A hard fork changes the rules followed by compatible network software. Validators, exchanges, infrastructure providers and other node operators would need to install the updated version. If some operators keep using incompatible software, the chain could split into competing versions. That’s a risk, not a certainty.
Polygon’s four validator-elected block producers reportedly added the five addresses to Bor transaction block lists after the incidents. These filters restrict certain transactions, but the proposal does not describe them as a complete asset freeze. They apply to outer senders and EIP-7702 authorities, rather than every possible way the assets might be moved. The proposal says no bypass had been found, but that does not prove every route is impossible.
The restrictions also do not return the assets. According to the proposal, block producers read their lists when software starts, so changing the lists requires operational steps such as restarting Bor or rotating a span. Entries do not expire automatically. The proposed fork offers a more direct way to move the specified balances, but with much greater consequences.
Two incidents, a narrower recovery target
The proposal describes separate incidents associated with Polymarket and Binance on October 29 and 30, 2026. It says about 28 million POL was involved in the Polymarket incident, while the four addresses selected for the proposed recovery held 23, 862, 736.07 POL. The proposal does not account for the roughly 4.14 million POL difference.
For the Binance incident, the proposal says a hot wallet transferred 46, 626, 589.6 POL and 6, 185, 900.1 USDT to an attacker-controlled address. It says Tether later froze the USDT. The proposed Binance recovery balance, 46, 626, 593.27 POL, is 3.67 POL higher than the reported transfer amount. The proposal does not explain the difference.
The proposal also alleges that the attacker later tried another transaction with a fee worth roughly 219, 450 POL and contacted validators, offering cash to help move the funds. It says Polymarket tried to reach the attacker through the SEAL Safe Harbor Recovery safe but got no response. These claims come from the proposal and are not independently established here.
The proposed change covers only the five identified POL balances. It excludes other assets connected to the incidents. The proposal also says it would not include additional addresses Binance asked validators to restrict.
Approval, coordination and precedent
The proposal’s timeline lists a presentation at the Polygon Protocol Governance Call for November 5, 2026, at 14:30 UTC. A scheduled presentation does not mean the plan has been approved. The proposal leaves the activation block, fork name and client release undecided, and does not document a completed recovery. The proposal alone cannot establish its current status after that timeline.
Before activation, Binance and Polymarket would need to prove control of their recovery wallets, for example by signing a message or making a small test transfer. They would also need to confirm in writing that the wallets are authorized to receive the funds. Activation would depend on governance approval, continued enforcement of the block lists, consistent incident reports and a final balance review.
According to the proposal, testing on Polygon’s Amoy network and development could take roughly two weeks after approval. It describes one week as tight. Polygon validator operations expected 70% to 80% of stake to reach the required software version quickly after release. That is an operational estimate, not proof that all operators would upgrade or that a chain split would be avoided.
Supporters describe the plan as a narrowly scoped response to publicly acknowledged incidents and requests from the affected parties, rather than a standing power to reverse transactions. The proposal calls it an extreme action that should not be reproduced commonly. Reporting has also described Binance and Polymarket seeking a Polygon hard fork to recover stolen crypto.
That warning gets to the heart of the debate. A protocol-level intervention may help when funds can be traced and affected parties request their recovery. But even a one-time exception raises hard questions. Who decides when intervention is justified? And what protects users when ownership is disputed? The proposal argues against creating a general recovery mechanism, but any exception sets a precedent for how the network might respond next time.
The proposal requires proof of control over the recovery wallets, but says nothing about their custody arrangements or how disagreements over ownership or allocation would be resolved. Those questions matter because the funds would go to company-controlled wallets, not directly to individual users.
Key questions and answers
-
How much POL could be moved?
The proposal lists reference balances totaling 70, 489, 329.34 POL: 23, 862, 736.07 linked to Polymarket and 46, 626, 593.27 linked to Binance. The final amounts would depend on the balances immediately before the activation block.
-
Have the funds been recovered?
The proposal describes a possible recovery, not a completed one. Its text does not establish whether the plan was later approved or activated.
-
Would the fork increase POL supply?
No. The proposed change would debit the specified addresses and credit the same amounts to recovery wallets, leaving total supply unchanged.
-
Would affected users receive the funds directly?
No. The proposed recipients are wallets designated by Binance and Polymarket. The proposal does not say how the companies would handle recovered assets or compensate affected users. A separate debate over lawmakers trading on Polymarket raises another set of questions about the platform.
-
What must happen before activation?
The plan requires governance approval, wallet-control checks and written address confirmations, technical preparation and testing, continued block-list enforcement, and a final balance review.
-
Could Polygon split over the change?
Yes. A split could happen if some operators follow incompatible software rules. The proposal calls for coordinated upgrades, but a split is a risk, not a guaranteed result.
