5 ETH purchased 6.5 million votes, Arbitrum DAO election exposed "money buying votes" successfully for the first time.

LobbyFinance (LobbyFi) users acquired up to $6.5 million worth of ARB token voting rights at a very low cost, only 5ETH is about $10,000, and successfully influenced the results of a key committee member election. (Synopsis: When DeFi Meets AI: Decrypting the DeFAI Wave of the Arbitrum Ecosystem) (Background supplement: Base chain TVL exceeded 2.4 billion magnesium into "the strongest Ethereum L2", and the transaction activity far exceeded Arbitrum) As the leader of Ethereum's Layer2 scaling solution, ArbitrumDAO has high expectations, not only for its technical strength, but also for its large and active decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Through the collective wisdom of ARB token holders, lead the protocol to a broader future. However, the recent turmoil surrounding the election of DAO members has pushed a "ghost" that has been lurking in the deep water of DeFi governance for a long time - voting bribery (voting market) to the forefront. At the heart of the incident is that a platform called LobbyFinance (LobbyFi) enabled users to acquire up to $6.5 million worth of ARB token voting rights at a very low cost (only 5ETH, about $10,000) and successfully influenced the outcome of a key committee member election. This incident is like opening Pandora's box, which not only exposes the fragility of the "one token, one vote" governance model, but also raises deep concerns about the legitimacy, security and future direction of DAO governance. Is this an isolated "black swan" event or the tip of the iceberg that heralds a systemic crisis in the DAO governance model? 5 ETH leverages $6.5 million in voting rights, the capital "ghost" behind the election turmoil In early April 2025, ArbitrumDAO was conducting a membership election for its newly established Oversightand Transparency Committee (OAT). This seemingly ordinary community governance activity caused an uproar due to a "small" transaction. According to DeFi researcher @DefiIgnas, an address called hitmonlee.eth spent 5 ETH (worth about $10,000 at the time) through the LobbyFi platform to buy voting rights of up to 19.3 million ARB tokens. These 19.3 million ARB tokens, at the market price at the time, were worth a total of approximately $6.5 million. What is even more staggering is that the number of votes purchased even exceeds the number of votes held by veteran well-known representatives such as Wintermute and L2Beat who have been deeply cultivated in ArbitrumDAO for a long time and have a large number of community commissions. Instead of spreading out these votes, hitmonlee.eth went all to Joseph Schiarizzi, one of the OAT committee candidates, a developer and expert in the field of DeFi. This massive infusion of votes had a decisive impact on the outcome of the election, ultimately helping Schiarizzi to be elected to the OAT Committee. The core driver of this event is the LobbyFinance (LobbyFi). LobbyFi is positioned as a platform for governance influence, or more bluntly, a "voting lease market." Its mode of operation is to hold coins, which can delegate token voting rights to LobbyFi to obtain a certain rental report. The sale of voting rights can be carried out by auction, and the highest price wins; It can also be done through a fixed price set by the platform ("instant purchase"). In the case of the Arbitrum OAT election, hitmonlee.eth took advantage of 5ETH's "instant purchase" option. LobbyFi claims that its operations are transparent, disclosing the voting rights of proposals available for purchase and their prices, and giving the market time to react. However, the essence of this mechanism is to commoditize governance power, allowing short-term capital to gain enormous governance influence at a much lower cost than buying the equivalent amount of tokens outright. The economic motivation behind the election turmoil The reason why this incident has caused great controversy is also the unbalanced economic incentives behind it. The position of OAT committee member is not a false name, but comes with real financial rewards. It is estimated that the position will be paid approximately 47.1ETH (approximately $7,500 per month) during a 12-month tenure, plus a potentially high bonus of up to 100,000 ARB (approximately 18.7ETH at the current price), for a total potential gain of approximately 66ETH. This means that hitmonlee.eth could potentially help the candidates it supports secure positions worth up to 66 ETH at a cost of just 5 ETH. This huge interest gap undoubtedly provides a strong economic incentive for voting to buy. The ultimate beneficiary, @CupOJoseph himself, has publicly admitted that the current vote purchase is "underpriced and risky", arguing that "$10,000 from the DAO should not cost only $1,000." This remark seems to clear up the suspicion of participating in bribery of votes, but it also confirms the loopholes in the current system from the side. This isn't the only low-priced deal on LobbyFi. According to @DefiIgnas, 20.1 million ARB votes were previously purchased for less than 0.07 ETH (worth less than $150 at the time). With such a low cost of influence, the door to DAO governance seems to be opening to capital. The official discussion proposal community is divided, and the voting storm of DAO governance or regulatory attention on Arbitrum has caused an uproar in the community, which has also forced the Arbitrum Foundation and DAO members to face up to the challenges posed by the voting market and actively seek solutions. Immediately after the incident, the Arbitrum Foundation initiated a public discussion entitled "DAO Discussion: Voting to Buy Services" at the official governance forum. Acknowledging that this was a "seminal moment," the foundation did not immediately take strong measures that were unilaterally banned, choosing instead to throw the issue to the community, still hoping to find a way forward through collective discussion. According to the content of the new proposal, LobbyFi has been active in the ArbitrumDAO for several months, but this is the first case of someone willing to spend money to influence the election results. Opinions within the community are clearly divided, with a few hardliners advocating a zero-tolerance approach to vote buying, proposing to simply cancel or ignore ballots identified as purchased. There are also some views that under the token-weighted governance system, vote buying is a manifestation of market forces and is difficult to completely ban, and a forced ban will only force it into a more hidden corner. They argue that platforms like LobbyFi, which offers at least some traceability, may be superior to untraceable private transactions. Some even argue that LobbyFi activates an otherwise dormant voting right and increases overall engagement. More discussion focused on how to solve the problem at its root. The core idea is to make voting buying less attractive while increasing the return on "honest" governance participation. It is worth noting that the chaos of DAO governance and...