Arbitrum's Watchdog Committee has given Good Entry, Limitless and APX Finance until a tentative Sept. 10 deadline to answer high-severity misuse findings or face separate votes on permanent exclusion from future DAO programs. The three projects' cited figures add up to 457,553 ARB, though the committee says that total blends different findings rather than one confirmed amount owed. As of Sept. 5, none of the projects had replied.
Three projects face a Sept. 10 deadline
Arbitrum's Watchdog Committee, a grant oversight body, wants Good Entry, Limitless and APX Finance, formerly ApolloX, to answer unresolved misuse findings and return disputed funds within a tentative one-week window. If a project's explanation is unsatisfactory and its funds are not returned, the committee said a vote would follow on banning it from future DAO programs. As of Sept. 5, no project had responded in the proposal thread, and no ban has been approved.
The three cases name figures that add to 457,553 ARB combined, but the committee says that total merges separate findings rather than representing one repayable balance.
What each project is accused of
For Good Entry, the committee said on-chain analysis found 142,839 ARB was distributed to 1,032 ineligible users during and after its Short-Term Incentives Program. It also alleged self-farming by wallets linked to team addresses and said the project refused to clarify. Good Entry had requested 200,000 ARB in its original grant application, so the disputed figure covers part of that grant.
Limitless is accused of swapping 75,000 ARB into USDC and moving the funds to Base, with team members unreachable for clarification or recovery. That figure matches the 75,000 ARB the project requested in its LTIPP application.
APX Finance's case ties 239,714 ARB to overlapping issues, including an unspecified substantial portion left unutilized in treasury addresses, late transfers to distributor contracts, and alleged team-linked Sybil activity. APX had requested 525,000 ARB, but the proposal does not break the 239,714 ARB figure down by issue.
A governance sanction, not a fund freeze
Each project would face its own off-chain Snapshot vote. A ban on an operating project would cover its founders, current team members and affiliated contributors; for a project no longer operating, it would apply only to founders. The vote seeks social consensus and requires no on-chain action — covered people or projects would simply become ineligible for future Arbitrum DAO programs, a governance-access sanction rather than a wallet freeze or a protocol shutdown.
The watchdog program has grown beyond these three cases: as of Sept. 2, it had received 90 reports, recovered about 532,000 ARB and distributed about 268,000 ARB in reporter bounties. The next signal is whether any of the three projects answers before Sept. 10, followed by whether the committee moves ahead with its tentative Snapshot timetable.
Source: CryptoSlate
Trading involves risk.
Risk Disclaimer
