[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  ogle | glue.net [@cryptogle](/creator/twitter/cryptogle) on x 44.3K followers Created: 2025-07-03 17:13:19 UTC I’ve been asked by a lot of people to post something here that replies to some of Hart's / Across's points, and post proof of my own claims, from my thread the other day. Pre-warning: this post is going to be super in the weeds, and unless you really care about the details of the Across / $ACX post I made the other day (which their CEO Hart Lambur replied to with nonsense, sleight of hand, and ad hominem attacks on me personally, as opposed to the addressing the actual issues I brought up), then you're probably best just sharing this with others who do care, or "liking" it then passing over it entirely. Link to my prior thread: Link to his article reply: First, let me say quickly that Hart is leaning heavily on him being non-anon, and me being anon, as a basis for who you should believe. I’ll simply post the facts below so you won’t have to choose who to believe, but even if I didn’t have loads of facts to back myself, his argument of “anon bad, non-anon good” is prima facie stupid given that some of the people who have harmed our industry the most - such as SBF and Mashinsky - were fully doxed, non-anons. And some of those who have helped our industry the most - including Satoshi Nakamoto, zachxbt, samczsun, gcr, wassie, 0xmaki, and loads of others - were/are anon. This should go without saying, but since some folks seemed convinced by his argument, I felt it was worth pointing out. But this way of arguing you’ll see is typical of Hart. He will make a claim that on the surface seems fair and reasonable, but if you think X second longer you’ll see it’s nonsensical or an attempt to misdirect. One more thing I’ll say before going to the points is that in private, they told me they would be updating their governance policies and procedures to reflect the long conversations we had had together about how what they did here was wrong, unethical, and potentially illegal. Why in the world would they agree to change their policies for the future if they didn’t agree with me that what they’d done was wrong? Hart’s tweet article is just cope and/or meant to mislead the public (again). The best idea would’ve been to just come clean from the get-go, figure out a way to re-do the votes properly (I recently worked hand in hand with another DAO to resolve these exact type of issues), and promise to never mislead the DAO and others again. But instead, we got Hart’s article I linked to above. On to the points: Claims 1-2: “works closely with LayerZero and Stargate, my arch rivals. [...] tried to get this story covered by a very high profile journalist in our space in January this year. This journalist asked me and my team many, many questions before deciding that there was no story to publish because we did nothing wrong.” My company @gluenet does work with LayerZero and Stargate, and it also has attempted to do work with Across. I have personally done X figure OTCs with Across (without issue). Glue also works with a zillion others in the space that everyone has heard of. This claim, though, is Hart’s attempt to undermine my credibility by implying there is a concerted effort by myself + L0/STG to harm him, or to imply there is a bias in my claims. But him doing so is odd, because as I told him already in our private chats: I recently worked with Stargate DAO themselves to rectify some places where governance processes were not followed. I saw issues with what was happening with DAO voting, pointed them out, and came to the team to speak about it - same as I did with Across. To be clear, these were not places where there was any alleged self-dealing, but rather where the exact rules of the DAO were not followed per the prescribed governance process. The actual facts are not even 1/100th as bad as what Risk Labs did with Across, but a level playing field across the industry is paramount. The difference between Stargate and Across is that while Stargate worked hard to rectify the situation in public, Across ignored me for months, then when I posted about it pretended to have no idea what I was talking about. In other words, one acted with integrity, and one didn't. The above should clear up allegations of bias. As for the “high profile journalist” who didn’t publish because there was “no story” because Across “did nothing wrong” - I’ll let that journalist, if they want to, give their comments here if they like, but I can assure you this is absolutely not correct and I’m surprised that Hart would say something like this, given that it could so easily be disclaimed by said journalist who, I agree, is very high profile and tries to hold folks to the highest ethical standards. Claims 3-4: “Risk Labs is a not-for-profit company, silly! It’s a non-profit Cayman Foundation with a mandate to build the Across and UMA decentralized protocols. [...] Risk Labs was granted ACX tokens from the DAO to build the Across protocol” It being a nonprofit may be true, but if it is, it’s not listed on the Cayman Island's General Registry saying so: - so... I don't know what to make of that? Secondly, it kind of doesn’t matter. As he says above, the DAO gave a lot of tokens to Risk Labs to build the Across protocol - but that’s not all Risk Labs builds, which he also said himself. Risk Labs has and does build out numerous other projects, including UMA and Oval, and when I asked them how they thought it was fair and reasonable that the Across DAO funds all of their other companies/products, they said to me in private (paraphrasing) that “foundations often support different companies” and they saw no issue with it. Risk Labs even runs the main relayer for Across, but none of the money goes back to the DAO. They also let me know there were no contractual guarantees for the money from the Across DAO proposals to be used on just building Across, and seemed surprised that I’d find issue with that. Of course, in the proposals on the DAO itself, nowhere did it say “hey we want this money to go and build other things that aren’t Across,” and therefore it was certainly unethical and potentially illegal if they used a single penny to do anything other than what they said they’d be doing. To me, as a non-lawyer, it sounds like a "misappropriation of funds." Claims 5-6: “My team is free to buy tokens and privately vote in proposals, just like every other DAO out there. [...] Kevin voting with maxodds.eth is not ‘secret’—this is a transparent, onchain vote. And these are tokens he acquired with his own money.” First of all, most other well-run DAOs out there do not in fact allow their team members, who would have access to inside information, to vote on proposals. I went into the “why’s” of this in my original post so won’t delineate them here, but since Hart in his article says several untrue things very confidently, I wanted to point that out. Secondly, if something were “transparent” just because you can see it on-chain, we wouldn’t have any need for on-chain sleuths or companies like Chainalysis, would we? Nowhere did Risk say that Kevin is linked to maxodds.eth, nowhere is there a list of associated addresses of team members, etc. I was able to find this myself, using somewhat non-obvious methods which I’ll list below later, in order to figure out this was Kevin. Kevin then sent tokens to different wallets, spread them out, and then voted using those different wallets on proposals, likely an attempt at obfuscation. So this is once again an attempt by Hart to say something that downplays what I originally said, but if you actually dig deeper, you see it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Let me ask a very clear follow up question as well: Hart, did you vote on either of these proposals with any wallets that you control? If yes, why didn’t you disclose them? If no, why didn’t you vote given your stance on team voting and your stance towards receiving these funds? Claim X + a point: “Reinis is a long time engineer on my team. In a personal account he holds a less-than-6-figures amount of ACX that he acquired with his own money. He voted in these proposals as he saw fit. He did nothing wrong and you should be ashamed of doxing him.” Doxing him? He used his public ENS, Reinis.eth... I would never dox someone who is an anon, and I have no clue if Reinis is his real name or not. Best not to use words one doesn't understand. Anyway, regarding team members, I will say one more thing: if it wasn’t a big deal that the team vote on proposals which benefit them, then why did another core team member, Brittany, vote to abstain from the proposal? From my pov, she did the right thing and may have been the only one over there thinking straight. Good governance means abstaining in cases where you can be directly benefited and haven't posted disclosures saying so. Claims 8-9: “The second proposal passed with ZERO people voting against it. Literally ZERO votes against. If people disagreed with the proposal, it would have been easy for them to vote it down—and there was a X day window for this vote, in addition to a long community discussion, where the proposal received zero pushback. It is absolutely impossible to argue that the team pushed this through.” Another attempt at sleight of hand and misdirection here. DAO votes have to reach quorum to pass - this means, if a certain number of votes don’t come through, it can’t pass because there isn’t enough public interest. In this case, if the team had not voted, it would not have reached quorum. Therefore, the vote passed only because the team voted affirmatively on it to do so: Let’s go a step further: on the Across Forum there are governance rules linked on the homepage These state you need 12.5m votes to pass quorum, which was not met. If we dig a bit further we find an older proposal from a Risk Labs team member to lower quorum This was passed, but the actual community rules were never updated. Even if we assume this is the truth, without the team votes the proposal would not have enough votes to pass. The value of the proposal in USD is too high to have a “soft quorum” per the DAOs own rules proposed by Risk Labs themselves. Funny enough, there was a forum post from community members trying to raise quorum back later, but it got no response from the very involved Risk Labs team members It seems like quorum adjustments are considered when convenient. If quorum was raised back to the original levels, even with team votes the second funding proposal would have failed. Hart said it is against the spirit of the industry to not allow him and his team members to vote on their own proposals to benefit themselves - if the part of the “industry” he hangs out with believes this to be the case, we are in some serious trouble in DeFi going forward. If you are proposing a DAO give you a ton of money to do with as you wish, you should not, as an administrator of that DAO, be the one who makes that vote go through. As for the “long community discussion” that received “zero pushback” - there were X comments on the forum, the last of which went unanswered by the team before the topic was closed, and which had questions and comments about OTC investor transparency: Now, to the data and links that folks can use to see where I got my info from: First proposal: Second proposal: Fundraise tweet: [where exactly did these tokens come from since "nothing has left the multisig," as if that matters] Kevin’s Opensea account which I used to verify the maxodds.eth wallet was his: Some of Kevin’s wallets and associated which voted with loads of ACX: [showing how the second one was funded] Reinis' wallets and associated which voted with millions of ACX: See attached images for support and connections as well. Hopefully this ends the back and forth.  XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [$acx](/topic/$acx) [across protocol](/topic/across-protocol) [coins made in usa](/topic/coins-made-in-usa) [coins arbitrum](/topic/coins-arbitrum) [Post Link](https://x.com/cryptogle/status/1940821165586764083)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
ogle | glue.net @cryptogle on x 44.3K followers
Created: 2025-07-03 17:13:19 UTC
I’ve been asked by a lot of people to post something here that replies to some of Hart's / Across's points, and post proof of my own claims, from my thread the other day.
Pre-warning: this post is going to be super in the weeds, and unless you really care about the details of the Across / $ACX post I made the other day (which their CEO Hart Lambur replied to with nonsense, sleight of hand, and ad hominem attacks on me personally, as opposed to the addressing the actual issues I brought up), then you're probably best just sharing this with others who do care, or "liking" it then passing over it entirely.
Link to my prior thread:
Link to his article reply:
First, let me say quickly that Hart is leaning heavily on him being non-anon, and me being anon, as a basis for who you should believe. I’ll simply post the facts below so you won’t have to choose who to believe, but even if I didn’t have loads of facts to back myself, his argument of “anon bad, non-anon good” is prima facie stupid given that some of the people who have harmed our industry the most - such as SBF and Mashinsky - were fully doxed, non-anons. And some of those who have helped our industry the most - including Satoshi Nakamoto, zachxbt, samczsun, gcr, wassie, 0xmaki, and loads of others - were/are anon. This should go without saying, but since some folks seemed convinced by his argument, I felt it was worth pointing out.
But this way of arguing you’ll see is typical of Hart. He will make a claim that on the surface seems fair and reasonable, but if you think X second longer you’ll see it’s nonsensical or an attempt to misdirect.
One more thing I’ll say before going to the points is that in private, they told me they would be updating their governance policies and procedures to reflect the long conversations we had had together about how what they did here was wrong, unethical, and potentially illegal. Why in the world would they agree to change their policies for the future if they didn’t agree with me that what they’d done was wrong? Hart’s tweet article is just cope and/or meant to mislead the public (again). The best idea would’ve been to just come clean from the get-go, figure out a way to re-do the votes properly (I recently worked hand in hand with another DAO to resolve these exact type of issues), and promise to never mislead the DAO and others again. But instead, we got Hart’s article I linked to above. On to the points:
Claims 1-2: “works closely with LayerZero and Stargate, my arch rivals. [...] tried to get this story covered by a very high profile journalist in our space in January this year. This journalist asked me and my team many, many questions before deciding that there was no story to publish because we did nothing wrong.”
My company @gluenet does work with LayerZero and Stargate, and it also has attempted to do work with Across. I have personally done X figure OTCs with Across (without issue). Glue also works with a zillion others in the space that everyone has heard of. This claim, though, is Hart’s attempt to undermine my credibility by implying there is a concerted effort by myself + L0/STG to harm him, or to imply there is a bias in my claims.
But him doing so is odd, because as I told him already in our private chats: I recently worked with Stargate DAO themselves to rectify some places where governance processes were not followed. I saw issues with what was happening with DAO voting, pointed them out, and came to the team to speak about it - same as I did with Across. To be clear, these were not places where there was any alleged self-dealing, but rather where the exact rules of the DAO were not followed per the prescribed governance process. The actual facts are not even 1/100th as bad as what Risk Labs did with Across, but a level playing field across the industry is paramount. The difference between Stargate and Across is that while Stargate worked hard to rectify the situation in public, Across ignored me for months, then when I posted about it pretended to have no idea what I was talking about. In other words, one acted with integrity, and one didn't. The above should clear up allegations of bias.
As for the “high profile journalist” who didn’t publish because there was “no story” because Across “did nothing wrong” - I’ll let that journalist, if they want to, give their comments here if they like, but I can assure you this is absolutely not correct and I’m surprised that Hart would say something like this, given that it could so easily be disclaimed by said journalist who, I agree, is very high profile and tries to hold folks to the highest ethical standards.
Claims 3-4: “Risk Labs is a not-for-profit company, silly! It’s a non-profit Cayman Foundation with a mandate to build the Across and UMA decentralized protocols. [...] Risk Labs was granted ACX tokens from the DAO to build the Across protocol”
It being a nonprofit may be true, but if it is, it’s not listed on the Cayman Island's General Registry saying so: - so... I don't know what to make of that?
Secondly, it kind of doesn’t matter. As he says above, the DAO gave a lot of tokens to Risk Labs to build the Across protocol - but that’s not all Risk Labs builds, which he also said himself. Risk Labs has and does build out numerous other projects, including UMA and Oval, and when I asked them how they thought it was fair and reasonable that the Across DAO funds all of their other companies/products, they said to me in private (paraphrasing) that “foundations often support different companies” and they saw no issue with it. Risk Labs even runs the main relayer for Across, but none of the money goes back to the DAO. They also let me know there were no contractual guarantees for the money from the Across DAO proposals to be used on just building Across, and seemed surprised that I’d find issue with that.
Of course, in the proposals on the DAO itself, nowhere did it say “hey we want this money to go and build other things that aren’t Across,” and therefore it was certainly unethical and potentially illegal if they used a single penny to do anything other than what they said they’d be doing. To me, as a non-lawyer, it sounds like a "misappropriation of funds."
Claims 5-6: “My team is free to buy tokens and privately vote in proposals, just like every other DAO out there. [...] Kevin voting with maxodds.eth is not ‘secret’—this is a transparent, onchain vote. And these are tokens he acquired with his own money.”
First of all, most other well-run DAOs out there do not in fact allow their team members, who would have access to inside information, to vote on proposals. I went into the “why’s” of this in my original post so won’t delineate them here, but since Hart in his article says several untrue things very confidently, I wanted to point that out.
Secondly, if something were “transparent” just because you can see it on-chain, we wouldn’t have any need for on-chain sleuths or companies like Chainalysis, would we? Nowhere did Risk say that Kevin is linked to maxodds.eth, nowhere is there a list of associated addresses of team members, etc. I was able to find this myself, using somewhat non-obvious methods which I’ll list below later, in order to figure out this was Kevin. Kevin then sent tokens to different wallets, spread them out, and then voted using those different wallets on proposals, likely an attempt at obfuscation. So this is once again an attempt by Hart to say something that downplays what I originally said, but if you actually dig deeper, you see it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Let me ask a very clear follow up question as well: Hart, did you vote on either of these proposals with any wallets that you control? If yes, why didn’t you disclose them? If no, why didn’t you vote given your stance on team voting and your stance towards receiving these funds?
Claim X + a point: “Reinis is a long time engineer on my team. In a personal account he holds a less-than-6-figures amount of ACX that he acquired with his own money. He voted in these proposals as he saw fit. He did nothing wrong and you should be ashamed of doxing him.”
Doxing him? He used his public ENS, Reinis.eth... I would never dox someone who is an anon, and I have no clue if Reinis is his real name or not. Best not to use words one doesn't understand.
Anyway, regarding team members, I will say one more thing: if it wasn’t a big deal that the team vote on proposals which benefit them, then why did another core team member, Brittany, vote to abstain from the proposal? From my pov, she did the right thing and may have been the only one over there thinking straight. Good governance means abstaining in cases where you can be directly benefited and haven't posted disclosures saying so.
Claims 8-9: “The second proposal passed with ZERO people voting against it. Literally ZERO votes against. If people disagreed with the proposal, it would have been easy for them to vote it down—and there was a X day window for this vote, in addition to a long community discussion, where the proposal received zero pushback. It is absolutely impossible to argue that the team pushed this through.”
Another attempt at sleight of hand and misdirection here. DAO votes have to reach quorum to pass - this means, if a certain number of votes don’t come through, it can’t pass because there isn’t enough public interest. In this case, if the team had not voted, it would not have reached quorum. Therefore, the vote passed only because the team voted affirmatively on it to do so:
Let’s go a step further: on the Across Forum there are governance rules linked on the homepage These state you need 12.5m votes to pass quorum, which was not met. If we dig a bit further we find an older proposal from a Risk Labs team member to lower quorum This was passed, but the actual community rules were never updated. Even if we assume this is the truth, without the team votes the proposal would not have enough votes to pass. The value of the proposal in USD is too high to have a “soft quorum” per the DAOs own rules proposed by Risk Labs themselves.
Funny enough, there was a forum post from community members trying to raise quorum back later, but it got no response from the very involved Risk Labs team members It seems like quorum adjustments are considered when convenient. If quorum was raised back to the original levels, even with team votes the second funding proposal would have failed.
Hart said it is against the spirit of the industry to not allow him and his team members to vote on their own proposals to benefit themselves - if the part of the “industry” he hangs out with believes this to be the case, we are in some serious trouble in DeFi going forward. If you are proposing a DAO give you a ton of money to do with as you wish, you should not, as an administrator of that DAO, be the one who makes that vote go through.
As for the “long community discussion” that received “zero pushback” - there were X comments on the forum, the last of which went unanswered by the team before the topic was closed, and which had questions and comments about OTC investor transparency:
Now, to the data and links that folks can use to see where I got my info from:
First proposal:
Second proposal:
Fundraise tweet: [where exactly did these tokens come from since "nothing has left the multisig," as if that matters]
Kevin’s Opensea account which I used to verify the maxodds.eth wallet was his:
Some of Kevin’s wallets and associated which voted with loads of ACX:
[showing how the second one was funded]
Reinis' wallets and associated which voted with millions of ACX:
See attached images for support and connections as well.
Hopefully this ends the back and forth.
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics $acx across protocol coins made in usa coins arbitrum