"Preventing these coins from being stolen" sounds a lot like taking away agency from the coin owners, active intervention, even if with good intentions is what the fiat system constantly does.

Giving people the tools to move them to a safe address seems way more sane to me, if they don't take action it's on them whatever the outcome is. Of course that assumes they're even aware of it, but in the end freezing it would have them lose their coins anyway so with the former there's at least a chance for them to safeguard their coins.

So either they lose it for not being in the known and not moving or lose from a direct intervention, which seems more hostile and against the Bitcoin ethos to me.

Now how much economic actors value non interventionism vs "good interventionism" is up in the air.

IMO giving options is better than deciding for users, taking away their agency.

But what is that about having to freeze insecure spend paths? Doesn't that still gives people agency to pick that option instead of just losing their coins by default to being frozen?