I understand and fully respect your motivations, but I don’t think we can hold every situation to the same levels.
A bridge hack has a very high, instant financial reward, that in most cases can’t be stopped in time before the damage is done.
This is a completely different situation to the very slow and public system of DAO voting.
While I obviously don’t understand all the ins and outs of the ‘whitelist exploit’, it sounds like something that is unrealistic and infeasible for someone to achieve.
- Who is going to/has the ability to do this?
I’m assuming the most likely person/people would be the DAO 1.1 team.
All members are well known and I think the chances of this are very low, but I’ll admit, never zero.
But even if they do…..
- What do they have to gain financially?
Affecting the stewards elections holds no real value, especially financial, but not even really from a power point of view.
Affecting the vote on a standard proposal would definitely have a financial reward, but in the scheme of ‘hacks’ this would be minuscule and they would also still have to meet all the development milestones.
They could just take the initial $10k and run, which is an acceptable risk imo, especially due to the issues the exploiter would need to deal with below.
- Changing the Meta Rules – This is the most dangerous possibility for sure.
But how can this realistically happen?
They still need to meet the minimum CKB amount and the quorum, so they would need to secretly prevent enough people with enough CKB from voting against their position.
I’m assuming that after someone votes, they will be able to see their votes counted on the dashboard and everyone else will also see the vote tally changing?
So how can it be possibly that enough people (remember, these are people that actually care enough to vote in the first place, so I’m sure they will also care that they’re votes are tallied) are prevented from voting but then when they realise their vote hasn’t been accepted, they wouldn’t immediately voice this issue publicly?
(EDIT: I just had a thought that maybe the votes can be removed afterwards, in which case, this would be harder for the voter to realise themselves and then prove after the vote has ended. I’ll accept that this changes things a bit if it’s the case.)
Of course there might be lots of community members who might not have an understanding or interest in making sure their vote was tallied, but how could the exploiter possibly know they are targeting these users specifically?
It seems totally unrealistic that over a 7 day voting period, this sort of exploit wouldn’t be recognised.
…but seriously, what is the reward at this stage?
