.jpg)
A controversial incident involving LobbyFi has reignited concerns around DAO governance after a user spent just 5 ETH to sway a major vote in Arbitrum DAO. The event has triggered heated debate over vote buying, governance manipulation, and whether the current “1 token = 1 vote” system is sustainable.
Background
- On April 6, 2025, a user identified as ‘hitmonlee.eth’ leveraged LobbyFi to purchase 19.3 million ARB tokens worth $6.5 million in voting power for just 5 ETH (around $10,000).
- This move helped secure a seat for Joseph Schiarizzi (a DeFi expert, founder of Open Dollar) on Arbitrum’s Oversight and Transparency Committee, which includes a reward of 66 ETH.
- LobbyFi, a governance platform enabling users to monetize their idle tokens through auctions or sales, has defended the transaction, claiming it enhances DAO participation.
- However, critics argue that it opens the door for manipulation and undermines the legitimacy of DAO elections.
Why Should You Pay Attention?
- This incident exposes fundamental weaknesses in DAO governance structures and raises questions about the sustainability of token-based voting.
- With platforms like LobbyFi enabling cost-effective vote purchases, DAOs risk becoming playgrounds for well-capitalized actors seeking to exploit protocol decisions for personal gain.
- As the DeFi space matures, governance security will become increasingly critical, not only to protect community interests, but to sustain investor confidence and prevent treasury losses.
Who Said What?
- Ignas highlighted the imbalance:
"Last weekend, hitmonlee.eth paid 5 ETH (~$10k) on @lobbyfinance to buy 19.3M ARB (~$6.5m) voting power. That's more votes than experienced DAO delegates like Wintermute or L2Beat have."
- LobbyFi responded:
“We disclose all proposals and pricing. Our model is transparent and gives time for responses.”
- Joseph Schiarizzi , who benefited from the votes, stated:
"It should Not cost $1k to get $10k out of the DAO. If should cost $11k to get $10k from the DAO instantly," acknowledging the system’s flaws.
- OlimpioCrypto, a DAO community member, compared the situation to Ethereum’s MEV issues, calling it “a cat-and-mouse game.”
- Meanwhile, Vitalik Buterin has separately proposed quadratic voting as a potential solution to mitigate governance exploits like vote buying in DAOs.
Zooming Out
- The Arbitrum DAO vote-buying saga highlights a critical dilemma in decentralized governance: how to balance open participation with security and fairness.
- As DAOs become more financially significant, the risks of manipulation grow. The rise of platforms like LobbyFi is part of a larger GovernFi trend, but it may require stronger oversight or new voting models to protect DAOs from becoming tools of the wealthy.
- With governance protocols like Aragon and Compound experimenting with modular frameworks and incentive-aligned systems, the crypto community may soon need to rethink its reliance on token-weighted voting to safeguard decentralization’s core ideals.
