Aave Labs is not like any other company or builder building on the product layer.
So while the distinction between protocol and product layer is fair, it should also be abundantly clear that anything branded Aave and funded by Aave tokenholders (Aave Labs) is part of the protocol layer and thus value should accrue first and foremost to the protocol layer. Otherwise you would be double dipping and diluting tokenholders (to your own advantage as you own much more equity)
From there, the protocol should take care to make sure the labs entity is well funded. But that should happen in the open and through governance. Which is also an important element and in fairness also often a under discussed topic. Builders on Aave should make good money from it, DAOs should be more generous with their builders. However, funding should happen out in the open and only after its agreed through governance, particularly when it pertains to the one company that shares the same IP and should operate primarily in service of the DAO (Aave Labs). It should not have a profit motive for its shareholders, only for its builders (so it can make money to pay more to builders or to pay more builders) and for the DAO.
Aave and Aave Labs have an opportunity now to take the DAO in the right direction, evolve it to the next level, or to effectively end AAVE. It’s good and necessary that this discussion is happening now. The ball is primarily with Aave Labs now to make the right decisions. Noone is doubting their capabilities as builders and the community owes them a lot of gratitude and admiration for what they’ve achieved. However, those achievements could all be meaningless, infact it could turn into a net negative, if the DAO’s/Labs interests are not re-aligned.
(edited - keeping the IP discussion here for now as well as to not fracture the discussion)
I opened a separate thread (below) on IP.The DAO should own all the IP, not just license it. The brand/trademark IP and all product IP. This is perfectly possible (the deflection that DAO’s cant own IP is a BS argument, they effectively can and I’m sure the Aave Labs team is aware of that), and there is no good reason this is not the case. It’s tokenholders that funded the buildout of IP. Opened it in other, but might be best moved to governance section. It’s part of this wider discussion, but I think it can stand on its own and is less debatable. Whereas this discussion has a bit more sides to it. So I would argue the IP issue can be resolved asap, while this issue deserves a bit more thinking and discussion. Not as to where the value should accrue primarily (the DAO) and if it should happen through governance (it should), but how the labs entity should be funded sustainably and in a way where they have growth incentive.
Seems moderators deleted the thread… Anyone cares to explain why?? (resolved - triggered normal moderation rules)
