Wang Chun Responds to Stakefish Lawsuit: Validators Only Package Legitimate Transactions According to Protocol, Cannot Adjudicate Off-Chain Ownership

BlockBeats news, September 11: stakefish founder Wang Chun stated that Trofimchuk filed a lawsuit against Lido Finance and stakefish on September 8 in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California. The plaintiff alleges that after their wallet was stolen, competing MEV bots vied for the relevant ETH through high-priority fee transactions. Wang Chun cited posts from two years ago related to an on-chain "front-running battle," pointing out that the incident stemmed from the theft of the private key of a validator withdrawal address, and as funds were about to reach the withdrawal address, various parties competed for control.

Wang Chun emphasized that as a validator, stakefish only packages valid transactions according to Ethereum protocol rules and cannot and does not judge off-chain ownership or adjudicate asset ownership disputes. If validators who strictly follow the protocol are required to recover rewards based on off-chain claims that cannot be independently verified, it would set a dangerous precedent: validators could be forced to filter transactions based on legal or ownership claims, staking rewards would fall into legal uncertainty, and the decentralization and credible neutrality of Ethereum would be undermined—principles that must be defended.

This incident can be traced back to April 2023, when Trofimchuk claimed that funds related to their long-used wallet and 9 Ethereum validators were stolen, with losses of approximately 600 ETH (about $2.2 million at the time). After the hacker obtained the private key of the withdrawal address and initiated an exit, as funds were about to be deposited into the controlled address, MEV bots appeared on-chain engaging in high-fee "front-running" competition. The plaintiff argues that Lido and stakefish, as validators/node operators, processed the relevant transactions and collected fees (some reports say the total exceeded $1 million), and also distributed remaining rewards to staking clients, constituting unjust enrichment; the opposing side maintains that validators only execute valid transactions within the protocol and cannot verify off-chain who the legitimate owner is. This lawsuit is therefore seen as a direct collision between "code neutrality vs. responsibility for stolen funds."