Today in crypto, Across Protocol founders have been accused of manipulating DAO governance to funnel $23 million in tokens to their affiliated for-profit company, Risk Labs, infrastructure attacks are responsible for most of the $2.1 billion in crypto stolen this year, and a judge denied Ripple and the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) request to reduce a $125 million civil penalty.
Across Protocol DAO under fire over $23 million fund misuse claims
The founders of the crosschain bridge Across Protocol have been accused of siphoning $23 million of funds to their own for-profit company.
In a Friday X thread, Ogle — the pseudonymous founder of layer-1 project Glue and onchain sleuth — accused some founders of Across Protocol of covertly manipulating decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) votes to fund their for-profit company, Risk Labs. Ogle accused the project of being among the “DAOs that are DAOs in name only.”
Hart Lambur, who founded both Risk Labs and Across, denied the claims in a separate post. He said that Risk Labs is a Cayman Islands-based nonprofit with no shareholders. He shared a certificate of incorporation and claimed that the company operates under fiduciary obligations.
“If the funds are misused, you can sue the directors (me!),” he said.
Talking to Cointelegraph, Lambur also shared the company’s certificate of incorporation. The document describes the firm as a “foundation company.” Cointelegraph was able to independently verify the company’s registration with Cayman Island’s online general registry.
Still, law firm Harneys explained in its Cayman Islands foundation company guide that such firms can have any purpose, “whether commercial, charitable/philanthropic or private.”
Crypto seed phrase, front-end hacks drive record losses in 2025
Infrastructure attacks such as private wallet key exploits and crypto protocol front-end compromises accounted for 80% of the $2.1 billion worth of crypto lost to attacks in the first half of 2025, TRM Labs said in a report on Thursday.
Protocol exploits were another majorly successful attack vector, with compromises such as flash loan and re-entrancy attacks accounting for 12% of crypto losses in the first half of the year.
The losses in the first half of 2025 have surpassed the previous record set in 2022 by roughly 10% and nearly equal the total losses from all of 2024, which TRM Labs said “highlights an increasingly concentrated threat to digital assets.”
The $1.5 billion hack of Bybit in February, an attack linked to North Korea, made up nearly 70% of the total losses so far in 2025, with TRM Labs calling for “multifaceted collaboration” between global law enforcement, financial intelligence units and blockchain intelligence firms.
US judge denies Ripple, SEC joint request to reduce $125 million penalty
A US district court denied a joint motion from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple requesting an indicative ruling to reduce a $125 million civil penalty and reverse an order defining primary sales of XRP to institutional investors as securities transactions under Article 5 of the Securities Act.
An indicative ruling allows lower courts like the district court to issue orders for a case that is pending review in the higher appellate court system, subject to approval from the higher court.
In a Thursday filing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Analisa Torres wrote that the court would not undo the earlier rulings, including the $125 million penalty, which were consistent with federal securities laws passed by Congress. Torres argued:
Ultimately, the Court granted in part the SEC’s request for an injunction and a civil penalty because the Court found that 'Ripple’s willingness to push the boundaries of the [Summary Judgment] Order evinces a likelihood that it will eventually, if it has not already, cross the line.' None of this has changed — and the parties hardly pretend that it has.
Nevertheless, they now claim that it is in the public interest to cut the Civil Penalty by sixty percent and vacate the permanent injunction entered less than a year ago," Torres wrote.
The parties could reduce the penalty and circumvent the lower court's initial rulings only through the congressionally stipulated appeals process and not by directly petitioning the lower court to reverse its orders, Torres wrote.
