According to recent research by Naoris Protocol, a global cyber security firm, nearly half of those surveyed believe that black hat hаckers, who break into computer networks with malicious intent, should be paid a percentage of the funds they steal and avoid prosecution if they return most of their spoils.



Of those surveyed, around 48% agreed with this view, while 38% disagreed and 13% were unsure. However, ethical hackers who work within the rules of the company are becoming increasingly popular, with many companies now seeing bounties as an important part of their cybersecurity budget.

Furthermore, there has been a debate about whether it is appropriate for hаckers to receive no punishment even if they do good deeds, such as fixing cybersecurity problems. Supporters of this view argue that it is acceptable if the hаckers return everything they took and help fix the problem so it does not occur again. In some cases, hаckers have been offered money or a job if they disclose how the breach occurred and return the stolen funds.

However, according to Monica Oravcova, Co-Founder & Chief Operating Officer of Naoris Protocol, allowing hаckers to engage in criminal activities undermines the decentralised financial system's ethos and promotes distrust, which would hinder the mass adoption of blockchain and decentralised systems. It is essential to consider that making hаcking an acceptable business model could increase their occurrence, which is problematic because having a cohort of hаckers ostensibly calling the shots in the cybersecurity space is crazy to say the least."

Hаckers who act with malicious intent or for personal gain are commonly referred to as "black hats". The hаcker Manifesto, written in 1986 by Lloyd Blankenship, aka The Mentor, outlines values that are considered the ideology of hаcking. These include a focus on knowledge and non-standard thinking, indifference to factors like skin color, nationality, and religion, and the promotion of unrestricted access to information.

However, cybercriminals who violate hаcker ethics by using their skills for personal gain or to harm others are not representative of the true hаcker culture. This distinction is particularly important for beginners who look up to the hаcker Manifesto as a guiding principle for their work in the field. It is vital to maintain the values of freedom, equality, and curiosity that are central to the true hаcker spirit.

On one hand, rewarding hackers for returning stolen funds may incentivize them to engage in illegal activities in hope of receiving a reward. On the other hand, offering such rewards could encourage hackers to return stolen funds rather than completely destroying or exploiting them. Ultimately, the decision to reward hackers depends on a range of factors, including the specific circumstances and the legal implications of the hack.

From an ethical standpoint, rewarding hackers for returning stolen funds could be seen as a way to encourage positive behavior and promote accountability. It may serve as a deterrent for future hacking attempts and provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. By offering rewards, it creates an incentive for hackers to reconsider their actions and potentially redirect their skills towards more constructive or legal pursuits.

On the other hand, there are valid concerns about the potential risks and unintended consequences of rewarding hackers. Some argue that it could create a perverse incentive for hackers to engage in illegal activities in the hope of receiving rewards, leading to an increase in hacking incidents. There is also the concern that rewarding hackers may legitimize their actions and send a message that illegal activities can be financially rewarding.

In addition to the ethical considerations, there are also practical aspects to consider when it comes to rewarding hackers for returning stolen funds. One key element is establishing clear criteria and guidelines for determining when rewards should be offered. This includes determining the amount of the reward and setting up a transparent process to ensure fairness and avoid any potential abuse of the system.

It is also important to assess the motivations of the hacker and their intent in returning the stolen funds. If the hacker demonstrates genuine remorse and willingness to cooperate with authorities, a reward may be more justified. However, if the hacker only returns the funds as a means to receive a reward or to avoid punishment, caution should be exercised.

Further, to effectively administer a reward system, authorities must have the necessary resources and infrastructure in place to handle such situations. This includes the ability to verify the authenticity of the returned funds and to distribute rewards in a timely manner.

Another perspective to consider is the potential impact of rewarding hackers on the cybersecurity ecosystem as a whole. By offering rewards for returning stolen funds, it could create a marketplace where hackers are incentivized to steal funds and then negotiate with organizations for a portion of the funds returned as a reward. This may lead to an increase in hacking attempts and could undermine efforts to strengthen cybersecurity defenses.

Moreover, the legality of rewarding hackers needs to be considered. In many jurisdictions, hacking is illegal regardless of the intent or outcome. Rewarding hackers might send a conflicting message about the consequences of engaging in illegal activities. It is crucial to ensure that any reward system complies with existing laws and regulations.

Another aspect to think about is the potential precedent that rewarding hackers could set. If rewards are consistently given to hackers who return stolen funds, it may create an expectation that all hackers will receive rewards, which is not sustainable or feasible.

Therefore, while there are arguments for and against rewarding hackers for returning stolen funds, it is important to carefully weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks, consult legal experts, and consider the long-term implications before implementing such a reward system.