# The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO's Grant Misuse Bounty Program **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Tags:** proposal\ **Created:** [December 22, 2024, 5:40am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978 "2024-12-22T05:40:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ignas](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ignas/32/11301_2.png) [@Ignas](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Ignas)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 9:05am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/41 "2025-01-16T09:05:58Z")
Oh I really love this idea and believe that “The Watchdog” will create a solid mechanism to monitor and protect the DAO funds. Plus, it will boost Arbitrum’s credibility, showing the DAO’s commitment to safeguarding resources and promoting transparency 🙂 Just a small suggestion, I think the DAO should implement a clear reporting process so the community can join easily and reduce the risks of incorrect or incomplete reports. ---
**Author:** ![EmmanuelO](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/emmanuelo/32/14835_2.png) [@EmmanuelO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/EmmanuelO)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 2:24pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/42 "2025-01-16T14:24:22Z")
Hi Entropy team, I appreciate the work that has been put into updating this proposal. Given the importance and potential impact of it, I’d like to suggest allowing a few more days for the community to provide feedback before moving the proposal to a snapshot. This would give all stakeholders more time to evaluate the recent updates and ensure that the proposal reflects the collective interests of the DAO. I believe such a step would strengthen the decision-making process and uphold the transparency and inclusivity we all value. Thank you for considering this request. ---
**Author:** ![Entropy](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/entropy/32/16528_2.png) [@Entropy](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Entropy)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 11:23pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/43 "2025-01-16T23:23:12Z")
The Watchdog is now up for a temperature check on [Snapshot](https://snapshot.org/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x2bc8e69eb65f3b2127072242ca317f51578db014019e22e8b370254e0566a4cf). @EmmanuelO Our team appreciates the request, but with the recent updates being only minor language clarifications, we feel that it is not necessary to delay this vote an additional week. The Watchdog has been on the forum now for 26 days vs the normal 7 day requirement. If the updates had introduced major changes to the program’s design/structure, then Entropy would agree that more time for delegates to review would be warranted. ---
**Author:** ![ElGordoTony](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/elgordotony/32/13514_2.png) [@ElGordoTony](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/ElGordoTony)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 5:12am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/44 "2025-01-17T05:12:01Z")
Im voting FOR this great proposal on snapshot; offering financial rewards for valid reports of misappropriation, motivates us to keep a watchful eye on the fair and honest growth of Arbitrum. Carrying out this project is very inexpensive compared to how significant it can be to increase security and encourage greater accountability. Proposals like this are a yes for me. Great Job! ---
**Author:** ![EzR3aL](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ezr3al/32/14760_2.png) [@EzR3aL](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/EzR3aL)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 11:30am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/45 "2025-01-18T11:30:01Z")
Im voting YES. This proposal is very much needed after what we have seen for example with Furucombo funds happened. Detailed explanation can be seen here. [Explanation in detail](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/14) ---
**Author:** ![paulofonseca](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/paulofonseca/32/15551_2.png) [@paulofonseca](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 12:17pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/46 "2025-01-18T12:17:40Z")
voting **For** the current offchain proposal because I’ve been begging Entropy since October to publish this proposal once and for all. There has been misuse of funds in this DAO, and this proposal should incentivize people to look for those and report them. For example, I just recently [found a $10k USD worth](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-report/27859/14) of misused funds that were reverted to the DAO after my report. We should all do more of that. ---
**Author:** ![chamadao](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/chamadao/32/12746_2.png) [@chamadao](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/chamadao)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 2:55pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/47 "2025-01-18T14:55:22Z")
We’ve voted in favor of this proposal, which hopefully is deployed to return misused funds back to the DAO. Making the program open to the community should incentivize good actors to find examples of misuse for reporting while discouraging bad actors from misusing funds. However, we think this doesn’t get to the root of the problems with the DAO, which relate much more to general overspending and bad strategy. We also encourage the community to remove the need for such policing by correctly allocating funds towards beneficial projects in the first place. If grant programs don’t continue to be needlessly profligate then this kind of bounty program won’t be necessary. ---
**Author:** ![danielM](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/danielm/32/12873_2.png) [@danielM](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/danielM)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 3:37pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/48 "2025-01-18T15:37:10Z")
Thank you, @Entropy, for this amazing proposal! Addressing the real problem of misuse of funds in Arbitrum DAO by creating a reward system for reporting it is a great idea. The proposal specifies that the initial group of three DAO-associated reviewers will consist of representatives from the **Arbitrum Foundation** , **Entropy Advisors** , and the **elected Research Member of the ARDC** > [@Entropy](#): > > A whitelisted group of three DAO-associated reviewers will have the ability to review the submitted reports. We propose the group of initial reviewers to comprise the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy Advisors, and the elected Research Member of the ARDC. However, it does not explicitly mention who will initially choose these three entities? Will we vote on candidates or will they be pre-selected based on their current positions and roles in the DAO ecosystem? And if it is not the delegates who choose them by voting, then who will? What is meant by “whitelisted”? I also wonder if 400,000 ARB will be enough for long-term effectiveness, or if there are plans for extending the budget if successful? Thanks in advance for answers. ---
**Author:** ![duokongcrypto](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/duokongcrypto/32/13828_2.png) [@duokongcrypto](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/duokongcrypto)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 3:37am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/49 "2025-01-19T03:37:50Z")
> [@JoJo](#): > > Coming a bit late to the discussion, so won’t likely add too much value here compared to the discussion. > > This program is needed because I know for a fact that people are “scared” of reporting misuse. There is no incentive in a structure like a DAO to do so, you only create enemy for yourself, more so if you are part of a protocol. So the program is needed, and having a redacted identity for the whistleblower is paramount. > > Main concern is that we go into a witch hunt as others said; this can either happened because the general sentiment of the DAO is quite adversarial (which is not right now and I don’t see necessarily happening but could indeed happen) or because the program is abused by externals. > While former is a somehow greater responsibility on the shoulders of everybody in here, the latter could maybe be partially mitigated. > > > [@duokongcrypto](#): > > > > In addition to rewarding whistleblowers, there should also be a set of punitive measures to limit malicious or false reports. > > I don’t think we can realistically have “punitive” measures. Even if the whistleblower KYC with the foundation, what measure can we apply? Ban from DIP? Doesn’t seems to get any effect if the person was not going to participate anyway. > Ban from grant program? Only works if the person has affiliation with a protocol, and this affiliation is stated before hand in the KYC, but this info cannot be likely verified without breaching the identity of the user somehow, which is a key part of the program. > > It could also be hard to identify a fake report from a report that is just wrong in the interpretation: we will have situations with smart contract interactions not easy to review, and they could be misunderstood by a reported in good faith. At the same time, a report in which we have fake/forged evidences can be instead evaluated as malicious. > So this last case is probably the only one that could lead to an exclusion, of the individual, to > > - the DIP program > - any role in the DAO > - any participation of protocols that have him as member to the grant program. > > But what is mentioned above is something extremely serious, punitive and heavy, and again should be only done in case of a clearly blatant fake report aimed at damaging an innocent third party; likely would need a DAO vote. > > All of these are things for which is difficult to draw a line in the sand, if that was possible we would just outsource the judiciary system in the world to computers instead than to people; I trust the committee, entropy and the foundation to have the best interest of the DAO in mind to do the right thing paired with their experience. On this note, plugging in people that understand incentive mechanisms can be a +ve to facilitate the work, and that’s why ARDC members are a good choice since most of them up to some degree had a role, or judged, or created report, on previous grant programs that we had in the DAO. > > In general I also second the better classification of low/medium/high. I think it could be structured with a few key metrics, specifically: amount of capital impacted, and how the funds are misused. Misusing funds can be a lot of things: having capital that should have been allocated to development, and is instead used in marketing, is a misuse, but likely less severe than wash trading from the protocol to get the funds for example. > A simple matrix of the amount of money, plus subcases on the type of misuse consequences, could help, knowing that in the end not all cases can be put on paper and it will be more of an indication than anything, and will have to be upgraded over time. > > As a final note, I think is fine to have the program fall into the opco at a later date; BTW in the OpCo i see the program running in the same fashion, with the OpCo potentially replacing Entropy or Foundation in the committee. I don’t think we can exclude ARDC: again, to evaluate certain interactions in smart contracts to draw a judgment, we will need technical expertise that might just not be in the OpCo itself. > > Thanks @Entropy for the proposal > > EDIT > Have a question. Knowing that the KYC part could potentially scare some whistleblower, is there a way, from a compliance standpoint, to have this program created without KYC? Not a lawyer here, maybe the Foundation can answer, but in the end we give for granted that “everybody that interacts with money flowing from the dao has to kyc” and maybe there is a ground for not doing it here? > > > [@Entropy](#): > > > > - Watchers will be required to undergo Foundation KYC before being eligible for rewards. > > For example, there could be a ground for a whistleblower being non KYCed if they don’t want a reward. This case should take in account in the program. This proposal is very good, and received many responses in the previous feedback, I vote: yes at snapshot The reasons are as follows: 1. DAO’s fund allocation needs an effective monitoring mechanism, and the current lack of reporting incentives and mechanisms to protect whistleblowers makes it difficult to detect abuses. This project can motivate the community to participate in monitoring and improve the transparency and security of DAO’s fund usage. 2. The reward mechanism is clear and will balance abuse and anti-abuse. ---
**Author:** ![kuiclub](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/kuiclub/32/13305_2.png) [@kuiclub](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/kuiclub)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 9:48am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/50 "2025-01-19T09:48:17Z")
I support the proposal. The Entropy team proposes a sensible mechanism to monitor the use of DAO funds while encouraging community members to actively report misuse of funds. The Watchdog Project is an interesting, innovative, and necessary proposal that could significantly improve DAO accountability and optimize the management of funds. With a few improvements in false reporting, RFP transparency, and whistleblower flexibility, I believe the program could better serve the Arbitrum community. I will vote in favor. Here are my reasons and additional suggestions: Reasons for support: 1. Clear process and incentive mechanism: The proposal defines the severity of funds misuse (low, medium, and high) and designs an incentive mechanism for whistleblowers that takes into account both the base incentive and the percentage of funds recovered. This approach effectively incentivizes whistleblowing behavior while providing real value to the DAO’s funds recovery efforts. 2. Deterrent effect: A transparent and fair bounty program not only helps recover misused funds but also serves as a deterrent to potential malicious actors, further protecting the interests of the DAO. 3. Follow-up: The proposal includes a 6-month trial period and a commitment to provide a retrospective report and data summary at the end of the period. This ensures the community has a basis for evaluating and optimizing the program. My additional recommendations: 1. Transparency of the RFP process: The proposal mentions that Entropy will be responsible for vendor selection, but delegates will only see the results. I recommend strengthening community engagement, such as regular updates on the RFP evaluation process or introducing transparent scoring criteria, to increase trust. 2. Flexibility in KYC requirements: The current scheme requires whistleblowers to complete KYC in order to receive a reward, but this may deter some whistleblowers, especially in sensitive cases. Would it be possible to provide an option for whistleblowers to “report anonymously but forfeit the reward,” thereby encouraging more submissions? 3. Dynamic adjustments in the allocation of funds: While the budget of 400,000 ARB may seem sufficient, the actual impact will depend on subsequent implementation. I suggest providing a brief report on the use of funds and the effectiveness of the plan halfway through the pilot phase to give the community an early understanding of progress. Personally, I would prefer a team linear release to motivate everyone. ---
**Author:** ![ocandocrypto](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ocandocrypto/32/5015_2.png) [@ocandocrypto](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/ocandocrypto)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 9:51am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/51 "2025-01-19T09:51:34Z")
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR in this proposal. Below the rationale: > [@Web3 Citizen Delegate Communication Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/web3-citizen-delegate-communication-thread/27518/19): > > Snapshot: The Watchdog (Grant Misuse Bounty Program) We are voting FOR this proposal. We support the establishment of an accountability system through the Watchdog Bounty to incentivize identifying and reporting fund misappropriation. Rewarding community contributors for report submissions enhances transparency. We are specially in support of the inclusion of a 6 month retrospective report with a follow-up vote to evaluate program success. ---
**Author:** ![pedrob](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/pedrob/32/15561_2.png) [@pedrob](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/pedrob)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2025, 5:26pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/52 "2025-01-19T17:26:12Z")
I vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot As I mentioned before, I support having incentives to detect cases of misuse of funds granted by the DAO. @Entropy has updated the proposal based on the feedback received from delegates, so I agree with its final version. One aspect I am not fully convinced about is the need for an RFP to build a platform to handle these communications. I believe using public infrastructure, such as ProtonMail, would suffice. Entropy could provide an email address where anyone can send evidence and a clean address where they want to receive the funds. I don’t see why this needs to be made more complex, especially considering that claiming the bounty would require going through a KYC process. ---
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2025, 11:55am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/53 "2025-01-20T11:55:37Z")
Voting in favor of the proposal. We need the ability to tell to “someone” if something is wrong, without fear of repercussion in a space that is not only quite small but lacks proper accountability like other industries, at least for now. I love that was introduced the clause for which people can submit a report without having to kyc if they don’t want the reward: this is key for several actors, such as protocols, that are best positioned to understand what is going on and if there is anybody acting in a shady way. Pretty sure there were plenty of protocols during stip, ltipp, stip bridge, that saw stuff that was “non compliance” and were just hesitant of coming forward due to fear of repercussion, reputational damage and what not due to the lack of this program. I am also in favor to build an ad-hoc infra for this (@pedrob mentions protonmail, but would not suffice imho because it will make the commission work just too complex; it also does not allow for proper anonimity on the side of whistleblower if they are not careful enough on their email). But would like to see this infra lately fall into the hands of opco, not in the management sense, but in the ownership sense, as well as all the other website we will build for our dao. Thanks Entropy ---
**Author:** ![Juanrah](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/juanrah/32/10393_2.png) [@Juanrah](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Juanrah)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2025, 6:46pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/54 "2025-01-20T18:46:00Z")
Voting YES on this proposal in Snapshot. Adding levels of potential misuse is a positive variable for the proposal. Tying bounties to fund recovery will also make the program sustainable. Making the process public adds transparency and gives the DAO enough input to correctly assess any misuse. I would only add that while I consider this a necessary check against misallocation, I view it as one component of a broader effort to maintain oversight. I also appreciate that this proposal lays out a path for eventual integration under OpCo once that entity is established. This will give OpCo an additional operational focus and will bring depth to oversight under a single framework. ---
**Author:** ![0xDonPepe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0xdonpepe/32/5989_2.png) [@0xDonPepe](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0xDonPepe)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2025, 10:00pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/55 "2025-01-20T22:00:02Z")
Voting **‘FOR’** this proposal on Snapshot. As I mentioned on my previous reply, the cost to implement this program is minimal, and the benefits are significant. I’m convinced this program will serve as a deterrent against “grant farmers” and encourage greater accountability across the ecosystem. ---
**Author:** ![Bob-Rossi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/bob-rossi/32/873_2.png) [@Bob-Rossi](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Bob-Rossi)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2025, 1:22am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/56 "2025-01-21T01:22:16Z")
I appreciate Entropy addressing my questions above, as well as addressing the broader delegate feedback. I think this is ultimately well thought-out, and with these changes there really isn’t any concerned on my end. I will be voting “For” this proposal. To more impactfully signal support, I want to note that some type of program like this is important to the health of the DAO. Perception matters, and the DAO will function best if there are deterrents to bad-faith applicants. It would be naive to think bad actors would try to abuse the DAO’s treasury, so having a way to combat this is good to see. Considering the relatively cheap cost, I don’t really see a reason not to do this in perpetuity, and look forwarded the retrospective report. Especially since it was indicated all prior projects are eligible for review. Edit for space: I still support the project and will be voting for on “Tally” ---
**Author:** ![Tekr0x.eth](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/tekr0x.eth/32/2289_2.png) [@Tekr0x.eth](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Tekr0x.eth)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2025, 8:09am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/57 "2025-01-21T08:09:29Z")
**Voted For:** When I first heard about this proposal, I was excited about it. This kind of program has a good record with other projects/companies in Web2, so I believe this will transition well in our space. I also appreciate the updates and extra clarification that Entropy Advisors provided to my comment regarding reports being public. It has now been changed so that the committee will decide which cases will be made public and which will not. I also appreciate that the program will have a trial period of 6 months, after which the report will be presented to the DAO. I am excited to see how many of these cases the program will cover and how much funds can be recovered for the DAO. The best-case scenario here is that the amount recovered by the watchdog would exceed the program’s budget of 400k ARB. ---
**Author:** ![Curia](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/curia/32/7751_2.png) [@Curia](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Curia)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2025, 9:24am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/58 "2025-01-21T09:24:43Z")
We support the Watchdog Proposal as it introduces a critical accountability mechanism to ensure DAO funds are used responsibly. By incentivizing community members to report misuse, the program helps deter malicious behavior, recover misallocated funds, and foster transparency. Its fair and scalable reward system encourages participation, this initiative strengthens trust and protects the DAO’s financial integrity, aligning with its mission to promote responsible and impactful resource allocation. ---
**Author:** ![0x\_ultra](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0x_ultra/32/236_2.png) [@0x\_ultra](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0x_ultra)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2025, 1:31pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/59 "2025-01-21T13:31:35Z")
I’m definitely voting FOR this proposal. We’ve seen grant funds misused in the past, and I think that this initiative is a step in the right direction to prevent wasted resources. Monitoring these issues is typically challenging, but I believe that the “horizontal” reward system addresses this effectively, while also strengthening the community. Having more eyes on the situation is a smart approach to proactive oversight. I appreciate how this not only safeguards our funds but also encourages active community participation. I really hope that this will make a change. It’s always frustrating to see funds being misused or wasted due to shady practices, but I’m optimistic that this can help turn things around. Thank you @Entropy for the proposal! (and sorry for the late comment on this) ---
**Author:** ![Gabriel](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/gabriel/32/12436_2.png) [@Gabriel](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Gabriel)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2025, 2:23pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978/60 "2025-01-21T14:23:31Z")
Voted “ **For** ” based on my previous comments. I believe this is a great program and worth pursuing. The cost is minimal, and implementing this program will create a strong incentive structure to deter bad actors. [Previous page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978.md?page=2) [Next page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-watchdog-arbitrum-daos-grant-misuse-bounty-program/27978.md?page=4)