# Analysis of Vote Buying Services **URL:** \ **Category:** ARDC Research Member\ **Created:** [May 8, 2025, 4:16pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/analysis-of-vote-buying-services/29189 "2025-05-08T16:16:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![noturhandle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/49beb7/32.png) [@noturhandle](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/noturhandle)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 2:56am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/analysis-of-vote-buying-services/29189/2 "2025-05-14T02:56:54Z")
Tons to dig through here, thanks for sharing @DefiLlama_Research Can you provide any more detail on this: > Butter can be considered a form of legitimate lobbying, where protocols selected in each proposal must make a case for why they deserve the votes. While indirect vote buying is always possible, it would come at a cost to the project itself, as it would reduce its overall incentive budget if the project is selected. How does a protocol lobby for votes if the decision is made via CFM? Users predict the conditional expected value of the KPI, lobbying can’t affect the final result. Perhaps you’re using these terms to describe the effective outcome of a protocol paying someone to trade to their benefit? Also, we’d be delighted to talk if you’re still interested. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/analysis-of-vote-buying-services/29189)._