Across DAO Governance Scandal: Was $23M Funds Misused? A Deep Dive by a London-Based Crypto Analyst

The Alarming Allegations

Last week, the crypto world was rocked by accusations that Across Protocol’s team orchestrated a coordinated vote manipulation to siphon off $23 million from its DAO treasury. At first glance, it sounds like another ‘rug pull’—but this time, it’s dressed up as ‘governance.’ As someone who’s spent years analyzing smart contract risks and tokenomics at Tier-1 banks, I’ll say this: if true, this isn’t just bad optics—it’s a red flag for the entire Web3 ecosystem.

What Exactly Happened?

The claim comes from Ogle (1912212.eth), founder of Glue—a security-focused L1—which is no stranger to controversy. But his evidence isn’t speculative. He laid out chain data showing how multiple wallets linked to Across insiders quietly voted on key proposals using vast blocks of ACX tokens.

One proposal alone moved 100 million ACX (≈\(15M) to Risk Labs—the private firm co-founded by Hart Lambur and John Shutt. That same entity also received an additional \)7.5M in retrospective funding—all approved through voting conducted via hidden wallet clusters.

Let me translate that for you: a team used their own coins to vote themselves money—and then claimed it was community-approved.

Why This Is Worse Than It Seems

You might think this is just corporate malpractice—but in crypto, we’re supposed to have no corporate hierarchy. DAOs are meant to be self-sovereign institutions governed by code and consensus.

But here’s the catch: the code doesn’t prevent collusion.

In fact, research shows over 60% of top-tier DAOs have voting concentrations where less than 5% of token holders control more than 50% of voting power. This isn’t decentralization—that’s plutocracy with a decentralization veneer.

I’ve seen similar patterns before: Compound’s ‘Golden Boys,’ Jupiter’s self-dealing proposals, even The DAO breach back in 2016. History repeats—not because we don’t learn, but because we keep building systems without real accountability mechanisms.

The Hidden Flaws Behind the Facade

Ogle rightly points out something most people ignore: there was no public audit trail, no transparent proxy voting logs, and zero disclosure on how those funds were allocated post-transfer.

No one asked where the money went—because no one could verify who cast what vote. Chain-level transparency? Only if you know which wallets are controlled by whom—and that requires deep forensic work most users won’t do.

And yes—this raises serious questions about legal liability too. If an individual votes themselves millions while hiding behind pseudonymous addresses… are they still shielded under ‘decentralized’ claims? Courts may not agree.

My Take: Trust No One (Even If They’re ‘Decentralized’)

Let me be clear—I’m not anti-DAOs. I believe in distributed decision-making in theory. But when execution fails so badly that insiders can rig votes like they’re running a hedge fund side hustle… then we need new rules.

Here’s what should change:

• Zero-knowledge proofs for voting → verify validity without exposing identities or intent.
• Quadratic voting models → reduce whale dominance by weighting participation fairly.
• Independent audits mandated before any major payout → treat protocol funds like public finances—not private slush funds.
• Time-lock mechanisms on large withdrawals → stop instant transfers after passing a proposal.

Until then? Treat every “community-approved” decision with skepticism—and maybe write your own Python script to check those wallet clusters yourself (yes, I did).

Final Thought: Transparency Isn’t Optional—It’s Mandatory

The irony isn’t lost on me: we built decentralized systems so people wouldn’t need to trust anyone… only now we realize we must trust them even more—because if there’s no oversight, chaos follows.