Only 3.5% support! Aave brand sovereignty proposal overwhelmingly rejected, but systemic issues remain

Aave brand asset transfer DAO governance proposal was rejected. The high abstention rate highlights procedural controversy and also brings the power and利益 conflicts between tokens and development entities to the forefront.

The results of the governance vote are announced, and the brand asset transfer proposal was overwhelmingly rejected

The governance storm surrounding the “brand asset sovereignty” of decentralized lending leader Aave has temporarily come to an end. According to the Snapshot voting results concluded on December 26, the proposal aimed at transferring control of the protocol domain, trademarks, and social media accounts to Aave DAO management was ultimately rejected by a landslide vote.

Image source: Snapshot Aave regarding “brand asset sovereignty” governance proposal, ultimately rejected with 55.29% against

Final statistics show that 55.29% of voters cast a NAY vote, while the abstain rate reached 41.21%, and support for the proposal was only a mere 3.5%. This means that up to 96.5% of participants did not endorse the transfer plan, and the brand assets will remain under the control of the development entity Aave Labs.

This voting outcome has sparked polarized interpretations within the cryptocurrency industry. Some observers believe it reflects token holders’ confidence in maintaining the status quo, but the high abstention rate also reveals strong internal protest and procedural dissatisfaction within the community.

As the voting concludes and controversy cools, market sentiment is gradually recovering from governance turmoil. Although the sovereignty of the brand assets is temporarily settled, the underlying power struggle between decentralized organizations and private development entities remains a focal point of community discussion.

Further reading
Aave DAO erupts into governance civil war! Why did a brand asset transfer proposal trigger strong backlash?

Profit distribution sparks trust crisis, procedural justice becomes a key battleground

The trigger for this governance crisis was when, in December, Aave Labs integrated CoW Swap and directly allocated an estimated annual transaction fee income of about $10 million to Aave Labs’ corporate wallet, instead of flowing into the Aave DAO treasury. This move raised questions from core contributors, who argued that Aave’s brand value depends on long-term funding and liquidity provided by token holders, and that private companies should not monopolize the revenue generated by the protocol.

Subsequently, former Aave Labs CTO Ernesto Boado proposed transferring core assets such as the aave.com domain, GitHub organization, and trademarks to a legal entity controlled by the DAO.

However, within just a few days, this discussion evolved into a power struggle. Aave Labs was accused of hastily pushing the proposal to the voting stage without Boado’s consent and without sufficient community discussion.

Boado even publicly called on token holders to abstain from voting as a protest against what he described as “trust-breaking” and “illegitimate” procedural manipulation, which also explains the extremely high abstention rate in this vote.

Although Aave Labs claims its actions fully comply with existing governance procedures, this lack of consensus and forceful push have disappointed many community members regarding governance transparency.

Founder invests an additional 15 million tokens, promises future economic benefits alignment

In response to community criticism of excessive power held by Aave Labs, founder Stani Kulechov issued a statement after the vote, promising to work towards making the economic relationship between the development team and token holders more transparent and clear.

Image source: X/@StaniKulechov Aave founder Stani Kulechov issued a statement after the vote, promising to make the economic relationship between the development team and token holders more transparent

He admitted that the team had not done enough to explain the value distribution mechanism to the community and will clarify how Labs’ developed products create value for the DAO in the future. Kulechov specifically pointed out that Aave DAO earned $140 million this year, surpassing the total of the past three years combined, and this amount is fully controlled by token holders.

To demonstrate confidence in the project’s prospects, Kulechov used personal capital to purchase a total of $15 million worth of $AAVE at an average price of $176 during the past week when the token price fell due to governance turmoil. He clarified that this additional purchase was driven by his belief in his “lifelong career” and did not involve using these newly acquired tokens to participate in the controversial vote.

He emphasized that intense debate and disagreement are features of decentralized governance. Although the process was chaotic, it is crucial for the long-term healthy development of the protocol. His statement has alleviated some market anxiety, but many token holders still expect more concrete institutional reforms.

Institutional investors call for resolving structural contradictions, seeking unification of token and equity value

Although the vote has settled, the structural contradiction between “tokens and equity” exposed by this storm remains a pressing issue for the DeFi industry. Evgeny Gaevoy, founder of market maker Wintermute, stated that the company voted against the proposal but strongly recommends that Kulechov present a specific value capture plan next year to clarify the利益分配 between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders.

Image source: X/@EvgenyGaevoy Evgeny Gaevoy, founder of Wintermute, said the company voted against the proposal

Additionally, well-known Lido advisor Hasu pointed out that linking governance tokens with independent private equity entities fundamentally creates misaligned incentives.

Image source: X/@hasufl Lido advisor Hasu also pointed out that linking governance tokens with independent private equity entities can cause incentive misalignment

This structure was initially a compromise response to regulatory pressure, but in the current market environment, it could become an obstacle to further decentralization of the protocol. Long-term investors generally hope to design a solution that unifies equity and token values to prevent similar利益衝突 in the future.

Although the Aave governance storm has temporarily subsided, the institutional issues it leaves behind—how to ensure that decentralized protocol developers pursue private commercial success without harming the overall interests of the community—will continue to be a core debate in the DeFi industry into 2026.