Across DAO Governance Scandal: Alleged $23M Fund Theft and Vote Manipulation Exposed

The Fall of a Decentralized Dream

I’ve seen many projects promise ‘true decentralization.’ Across Protocol was one of them—backed by Paradigm, Bain Capital Crypto, and hailed as the next-gen cross-chain bridge. But when Ogle.eth dropped a bombshell accusing the team of vote manipulation and moving $23 million to private wallets, I didn’t feel shocked. I felt… unsurprised.

This isn’t about hacking. It’s about governance failure—the kind that sneaks in through legal loopholes and unverifiable votes.

The Anatomy of a Controlled Vote

Ogle laid out the chain of events like an audit report:

• A proposal to transfer 100M ACX (≈$15M) to Risk Labs—a company tied to Hart Lambur.
• The same Kevin Chan who proposed it used maxodds.eth for secret voting.
• Another wallet funded by Hart himself cast nearly 14% of votes.
• Reinis FRP used multiple addresses to stack support.

No public discussion. No real transparency. Just coordinated action behind closed doors—with full community approval on paper.

That’s not decentralization—that’s centralized control wearing a DAO mask.

Why This Isn’t Unique—It’s Predictable

Let me be clear: this is not an anomaly. We’ve seen it before:

• Compound DAO’s “Golden Boys”
• Jupiter DAO’s self-dealing proposals
• The original The DAO collapse (2016)

The pattern? Founders hold disproportionate power via token concentration. Then they exploit governance rules designed for fairness but built without checks against insider abuse.

Even more alarming? Ogle notes that in any other industry, such actions would trigger lawsuits or board revolts. But in crypto? There are no boards—not even fiduciary duties enforced by law.

A System Built on Trust Without Accountability?

I’m not anti-DApp or anti-governance—I believe in smart contracts and community-driven decisions. But let’s be honest: today’s DAOs are largely decentralized in name only.

We’ve traded physical institutions for digital ones with identical flaws:

• Token whales dominate decisions;
• Voting data is often opaque;
• Funds disappear into untraceable wallets;
• And when questioned? Silence or denial.

It raises an uncomfortable question: Are we protecting investors—or enabling insiders? The reality? Inside threats are now greater than external hacks—and far harder to detect.

So What Now? Rebuilding Trust Through Design & Rules & Auditability & Accountability & Transparency & Verification & Checks-and-Balances & Guardrails & Privacy-Preserving Mechanisms

The first is technical: use ZK-proofs for anonymous yet verifiable voting—so no one can see your vote but everyone can confirm it was counted correctly. The second is structural: implement quadratic voting or reputation systems to reduce whale dominance while rewarding active contributors over passive holders. The third—and most critical—is mandatory third-party audits for all fund transfers, especially those involving core team entities like Risk Labs or foundation-linked wallets.