অ্যাক্রস স্ক্যান্ডেল

‘ডিসেনট্রালাইজড’ স rêve-এর ପতন

আমি ‘সত্যিকারের’ decentralized-এর promise-গুলিরও दখল करছিলাম। Across Protocolওতা छিল—Paradigm, Bain Capital Crypto-এর backing, cross-chain bridge-এর next-gen।কিন্তু Ogle.eth $23M fund transfer and vote manipulation–এর accusation–পথঘোষণা करলे—আমি অবাকওহয়নি।

হ’চ্‌চ্‌! It’s not hacking. It’s governance failure—legal loopholes and unverifiable votes.

Controlled Vote–এর Anatomy

Ogle audit-report-like events present:

• 100M ACX (≈$15M) Risk Labs–e transfer proposal—Hart Lambur-linked company.
• Same Kevin Chan used maxodds.eth for secret voting.
• Hart himself-funded wallet cast nearly 14% votes.
• Reinis FRP used multiple addresses to stack support.

No public discussion. No 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.

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 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. The reality? Inside threats are now greater than external hacks—and far harder to detect. The question remains: Are we protecting investors—or enabling insiders? The answer? Yes, both—and worse, the system enables it silently.