Yes, but: 1) Anyone who ever feels wronged by Near intents could now sue them. There is clear precedence that they have both the ability and the desire to decide what’s a good transaction and what’s a bad one. This will happen. 2) Any judge, law enforcement official, or prosecutor who wants to go after Near Intents (or its governors and participants) for facilitating illicit use can do so and accuse them of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. This will happen. (They went after Roman for a system he didn’t even control) 3) Any government that imposes sanctions will now expect near intents to enforce them. This will happen. 4) Any hacker (enabled by a frontier model) can now target Near Intents as it has demonstrated centralized controls. You could argue all of this is tolerable or even “worth it”. That’s a reasonable argument. But why bother with the decentralization theater? Just build a fully permissioned system and do KYC. No such thing as a system that’s only trustless when things go well.