Whale Investor ‘Humpy’ Shapes Compound DAO Decisions

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, also known as DAOs, are frequently seen as the next big thing in crypto governance, offering a future where decisions are made by the community. Although decentralized, many DAOs can still be swayed by large token holders, also known as “whales,” whose actions—or even inactions—can significantly shape these democratic setups.

Humpy” And “Goldenboys” Group Proposed Governance Changes

Recently, in Compound Finance, a group known as “Humpy” and “Goldenboys” used their Crypto holdings on X to enforce a debated governance change. Earlier this year, the Goldenboys group of investors, led by Humpy, put forward a set of proposals to the Compound DAO, seeking to reform the protocol’s governance system.

The most important of these was Proposal #289, which suggested moving 499,000 $COMP tokens—a large share of Compound’s treasury—into a yield-generating protocol managed by the Goldenboys group.

After two failed attempts by the same group to push similar measures, the proposal finally passed, though by a small margin. This shows how large token holders can still have a strong impact on DAO governance. The vote experienced a late surge of support, shifting the outcome in favor of the proposal, which had initially faced resistance from much of the community.

Michael Lewellen Raised Doubts About The Legitimacy Of The Voting Process

A security solutions architect at OpenZeppelin, Michael Lewellen, has voiced worries that the proposal’s passing was swayed by a last-minute transfer of compound assets from five addresses. Reportedly, these addresses withdrew more than 230,000 $COMP from the Bybit exchange shortly before the vote, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the voting process.

Referring to it as a possible “governance attack,” Lewellen suggested that the group exploited their voting power to override the standard safeguards. Humpy has been under similar scrutiny before. In 2022, he guided governance on the Balancer protocol, reportedly using a large quantity of $BAL tokens to tip outcomes in his favor.

This background has raised suspicions that the recent developments on the Compound could be part of a deliberate plan rather than a legitimate governance action.

This history has led to concerns that the recent events on Compound might be a planned tactic rather than a fair governance decision.

Humpy spoke up and denied all accusations, calling the phrase “steal funds” both “incorrect and misleading.” He clarified that the funds would be placed in a trust with protections against unauthorized use.

He stressed that the proposal was a valid outcome of the governance process and expressed gratitude to those who backed it. The problem at Compound was intensified by the inaction of other significant stakeholders, such as the venture capital firm a16z, whose decision to abstain from voting enabled Humpy to dominate the decision-making.