On September 11, Wang Chun, founder of stakefish, stated that Trofimchuk filed a lawsuit against Lido Finance and stakefish in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, on September 8. The plaintiff alleges that after their wallet was stolen, competing MEV bots fought for the related ETH through high-priority fee transactions. Wang Chun referenced posts from two years ago regarding the on-chain 'front-running war,' indicating that the incident stemmed from the theft of the validator's withdrawal address private key, leading to a scramble for control as funds were about to reach the withdrawal address. He emphasized that as a validator, stakefish only packages valid transactions according to Ethereum protocol rules and cannot judge off-chain ownership or adjudicate asset ownership disputes. If validators, who are required to strictly adhere to the protocol, are compelled to retrieve rewards based on unverifiable off-chain claims, it would set a dangerous precedent: validators might be forced to filter transactions based on legal or ownership claims, leading to legal uncertainty regarding staking rewards and undermining the decentralization and trusted neutrality of Ethereum, which must be upheld. This incident dates back to April 2023, when Trofimchuk claimed that their long-used wallet and funds related to nine Ethereum validators were stolen, resulting in a loss of approximately 600 ETH (about $2.2 million at the time). After the hacker gained access to the withdrawal address private key, they initiated a withdrawal, and as the funds were about to be deposited into the contested address, MEV bots appeared on-chain to compete for high-fee 'front-running.' The plaintiff believes that Lido and stakefish, as validator/node operators, processed the related transactions and collected fees (some reports suggest a total exceeding one million dollars), and also distributed the remaining rewards to staking clients, constituting unjust enrichment; the defendants argue that validators only execute valid transactions within the protocol and cannot verify who the legitimate owner is off-chain. This lawsuit is thus seen as a direct confrontation between 'code neutrality vs. responsibility for stolen funds.'