Сообщество Aave отвергло передачу контроля над брендом в руках ДАО Translation: Aave Community Rejects Brand Control Transfer to DAO Hands

Participants of the Aave ecosystem voted against a proposal that aimed to transfer the protocol’s brand governance to a decentralized organization.

The voting concluded on December 26, with 55.29% of AAVE holders opposing the initiative, 41.21% abstaining, and only 3.5% supporting it.

The proponents of the idea advocated for passing control of intellectual property—domains, social media accounts, and trademarks—under a legal entity governed by the DAO, presenting it as a necessary step toward decentralizing the brand.

Tension between the developer company and token holders emerged after a controversial deal. On December 4, Aave Labs announced a partnership with CoW Swap to «enhance swap pricing and integrate MEV protection into the protocol’s interface.»

On December 11, a delegate under the nickname EzR3aL claimed that trading fees from the updated swap contracts were now directed to a private wallet controlled by Aave Labs, stripping the decentralized organization of its major revenue source and prompting community outrage.

Amid the «civil war,» AAVE lost 19% in a week, dropping to around $150. By the time of writing, the asset had slightly recovered and was trading near $154.

The voting results highlighted a deeper issue: dissatisfaction among major investors regarding the protocol’s governance and revenue distribution.

Evgeny Gaevoy, founder and CEO of the market maker Wintermute, whose company opposed the initiative, called on Aave Labs to engage in a serious dialogue about aligning the interests of all parties for the long term.

According to him, this matter is critically important not only for Aave but for the entire market. Successfully addressing it could serve as a model for many other protocols in similar situations.

An advisor to Lido under the nickname Hasu referred to the ongoing situation as a symptom of a «fundamentally dysfunctional» model—coexistence of a governance token and a commercial entity.

He noted that the dual structure inevitably creates a conflict of incentives and makes effective governance of the protocol virtually impossible.

“Investing in a business inherently requires trust in the project’s management, and despite existing legal norms on paper, this management practically possesses unlimited power to dismantle the business. When conflicting incentives from equity structures are added to that, the complexity becomes insurmountable,” Hasu remarked.

The expert acknowledged that such hybrid frameworks emerged a few years ago as a forced response to regulatory hostility. However, in his view, long-term investors have always perceived them as a temporary compromise.

“As a long-time investor in Aave, I hope all parties involved can reach an agreement and devise a solution that leads us to a clear model—either one where everything is managed by a token or one where everything is managed by a traditional equity stake,” he concluded.

Analyst Milli characterized the situation as a “bullish signal.”

“The very fact that Aave’s governance continues to provoke heated debates and activity years after the DAO concept was dismissed—at a time when governance is largely disregarded—tells us that there is serious value here and that Aave is doing something right,” he commented.

It is worth noting that Aave’s founder, Stani Kulechov, has been accused of buying votes worth $10 million to gain control over the protocol.