ACI: Full Transparency Report
Author: ACI (Aave Chan Initiative)
Date: 2026-02-17
ACI is an 8-person team. The DAO has paid us $4.625M since March 2023. We started four months earlier, unpaid. Here is what we delivered.
The DAO is debating a single funding request larger than what it currently pays every other service provider combined. Before tokenholders vote on any service provider’s budget, they deserve to know what they are getting per dollar spent. Every service provider should publish a report like this one. ACI starts with itself.
Every number below is sourced from TokenLogic’s public dashboard, DefiLlama, the Aave governance forum, or on-chain data. Nothing here requires trust. Verify it.
The Bottom Line
For every dollar the DAO has paid ACI, protocol revenue grew by $29. We do not claim sole credit — BGD maintains the codebase, Chaos Labs manages risk, TokenLogic handles treasury, analytics, and leads on BD and institutional deals, and market conditions matter. But someone has to turn infrastructure into revenue. That is our job.
$101M in incentives deployed in 2025, $80M of it from external partners who chose Aave because of ACI’s infrastructure and relationships. GHO grew 15x to $527M. The AAVE buyback program is live. And the nearest comparable protocol without a dedicated growth team sits at a fraction of Aave’s revenue.
1. Revenue: From $5.2M to $142M
Source: TokenLogic Revenue Dashboard.¹ TokenLogic built and maintains the data infrastructure that makes this transparency possible.
| Year | Revenue | YoY Growth |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | $5.2M | — |
| 2023 | $22.5M | +331% |
| 2024 | $90.2M | +300% |
| 2025 | $141.8M | +57% |
| 2026 (6 weeks) | $22.3M | On pace for $190M+ |
Rolling 365-day revenue: $142.9M (as of February 13, 2026).
We began as unpaid contributors in November 2022, with paid compensation starting in March 2023. Since then, protocol revenue has grown from $5.2M to $141.8M annually.
V3 has been live since January 2023. BGD delivered protocol upgrades throughout, but the core lending architecture stayed the same. Revenue did not 27x because the protocol was rebuilt — V3 was already live. What changed was what got built on top of it: which assets got listed, which chains got deployed, which partners brought capital, which incentives got optimized, which governance proposals moved through the pipeline. That is what we do.
It runs on Aave V3, on eMode architecture BGD built and maintains. Two strategies we designed and executed through 75+ governance proposals drive 48%+ of it.
The LRT/eMode Engine
In February 2024, Gauntlet noted that WETH borrows stood at $1.1B, generating $3.87M in annual Reserve Factor revenue, with borrowing “primarily against WETH LSTs.” We saw the opportunity and built a machine around it.
We onboarded weETH (Feb 2024), rsETH (May 2024), and ezETH (Aug 2024) to Aave, then configured eMode at 93% LTV for ETH-correlated pairs to enable capital-efficient recursive borrowing: supply LRT, borrow wETH, convert to LRT, repeat. Each loop layer generates borrow interest for the DAO.
That is the simplified version. The actual design has more layers. LRT holders borrow wstETH. wstETH holders borrow wETH. Demand builds across the entire stack instead of every LRT fighting over the same wETH pool. LRT borrowing pushes wstETH utilization up, so wstETH supply rates rise. Higher supply rates attract more wstETH deposits. More deposits deepen the wETH borrow pool. Each layer feeds the next, and both users and the DAO earn more at every step. On-chain: $247.8M in wstETH is borrowed across Core and Lido markets today, wstETH holders carry $1.27B in WETH debt (22.5% of all WETH borrows), and LRT/LST collateral drives 97.6% of total WETH borrowing demand.
We raised Reserve Factors on LRTs to capture revenue at each step. We controlled access: EtherFi got eMode access to wETH to keep utilization high. Lido got a dedicated instance (TEMP CHECK: Deploy a Lido Aave V3 Instance, passed unanimously as AIP 133 with 702.7M votes) with its own market and growth trajectory. That kept the Lido relationship intact and generated millions in standalone revenue. WETH utilization on the instance regularly exceeds 90%.
Morpho cannot replicate this. On Aave, collateral earns supply interest inside the lending pool — LRT depositors get restaking yield plus pool supply APY. On Morpho, collateral sits idle. No supply yield, no compounding. The loop is structurally more profitable on Aave. We identified that gap early, built around it, captured 85%+ of the asset class, and turned it into $37M+ in annual WETH revenue.
The critical parameter decision: we raised weETH’s Reserve Factor from 15% to 45% (ARFC: Updating weETH Risk Parameters), tripling the DAO’s revenue capture on the fastest-growing collateral asset on Aave.
| Date | WETH Borrows | weETH Supply | WETH Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2024 (baseline) | $1.1B | — | $3.87M/yr (Gauntlet verified) |
| Mid-2025 (peak) | $9.68B | $8.48B | ~$51M/yr |
| Feb 2026 (current) | $5.87B (2.86M ETH) | $4.47B | $37M/yr (2025, TokenLogic) |
WETH is the single largest revenue-generating asset on Aave at $37M in 2025 (28% of total protocol revenue). weETH is the 2nd largest asset on Aave Ethereum by supply ($4.47B). ETH-correlated assets represent 43.6% of all Ethereum V3 supply.
In ETH terms, the engine is still growing. Borrowing has risen from ~2.55M ETH to 2.86M ETH (+12%). The USD decline reflects ETH price ($3,800 to $2,051), not strategy failure.
Direct holder scanning (2,704 WETH borrowers, February 16, 2026) confirms the loop thesis at wallet level. weETH holders alone account for 57.9% of all WETH borrowing: $3.27B in debt, $18.9M/yr in RF revenue. Expand to all ACI-onboarded LRTs (weETH, rsETH, ezETH, osETH, ETHx, tETH) and the share rises to 75.1% of WETH debt ($24.4M/yr). Add wstETH and it reaches 97.6%. Nearly all WETH borrow demand on Aave traces back to the LRT/LST stack we built. Those same LRT holders also borrow $707M in stablecoins, generating $3.9M/yr in additional RF revenue.
ACI authored 35+ governance proposals for LRT onboarding, eMode configuration, and parameter optimization across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Scroll, Sonic, and Avalanche. Key votes:
| Proposal | Snapshot VP (YAE) | Approval | Voters |
|---|---|---|---|
| weETH onboarding | 537,788 AAVE | 99.99% | 1,001 |
| weETH RF 15% to 45% | 546,596 AAVE | 99.99% | 758 |
| rsETH onboarding | 891,816 AAVE | 99.99% | 281 |
| ezETH onboarding | 910,217 AAVE | ~100% | 290 |
The Ethena/Pendle Flywheel
Ethena/USDe was Morpho’s core growth narrative. We flipped it into Aave’s revenue engine.
Starting in March 2024, we onboarded sUSDe, then USDe, then eUSDe, then Pendle Principal Tokens across multiple expiry batches. The strategy: PT collateral (high LTV via eMode at 91-94%) borrows stablecoins, converts to USDe, restakes, repeats.
We set USDe’s Reserve Factor at 25% at onboarding (ARFC: Onboard USDe to Aave V3 on Ethereum). High enough to capture meaningful revenue from billions in borrows, low enough to keep borrow rates competitive against Morpho.
The Pendle PT onboarding (TEMP CHECK: Onboard Pendle PT Tokens to Aave V3 Core Instance) was the game-changer. The TEMP CHECK passed with 69% approval. Contested, debated, ratified at 99.99% in the ARFC. We pushed through a controversial strategy that became one of the largest revenue generators on Aave.
| Date | Ethena Footprint | PT Supply | USDe Borrows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2024 (start) | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Sep 2025 (peak) | $6.8B | $4.2B | $1.18B |
| Feb 2026 (current) | ~$2.35B | $325M | $563M |
Ethena-related assets (USDe, sUSDe, eUSDe, and Pendle PT tokens) generated $12.7M in direct 2025 revenue. Ethena collateral holders also borrow $1.58B in USDC and USDT against their positions, generating an additional $5.8M/yr in Reserve Factor revenue. At peak, over 50% of all USDe-related assets in DeFi were deposited on Aave.
Aave captured 85% of the Ethena/Pendle lending market. Morpho captured 13% and generates zero protocol revenue from it. We designed Aave’s integration with competitive eMode parameters, better liquidity depth, and a Reserve Factor that captures value for the DAO.
Holder attribution (2,672 Ethena/Pendle holders, February 16, 2026) confirms $1.58B in stablecoin borrows ($1.02B USDT, $555M USDC, $6.5M GHO), generating $5.68M/yr in RF revenue, matching the $5.8M estimate within 2%. sUSDe, eUSDe, and Pendle PT tokens are collateral-only (zero direct borrow revenue); their value is the borrow demand they create. USDe direct borrow revenue scans at $6.6M/yr across Ethereum ($3.8M) and Plasma ($2.8M).
ACI authored 40+ governance proposals for Ethena/Pendle onboarding, eMode configuration, and PT token rolling across 12 expiry batches on Ethereum, Plasma, Avalanche, and zkSync.
| Proposal | Snapshot VP (YAE) | Approval | Voters |
|---|---|---|---|
| USDe onboarding | 678,840 AAVE | 99.96% | 432 |
| Pendle PT TEMP CHECK | 615,369 AAVE | 68.9% | 223 |
| Pendle PT ARFC | 446,504 AAVE | 99.99% | 151 |
| eUSDe onboarding | 578,066 AAVE | ~100% | 231 |
Combined Impact
On-chain verification (February 16, 2026; V3 pool reads + holder attribution across 254 assets, 22 markets, 16 chains):
| Strategy | TokenLogic 2025 | On-Chain Snapshot |
|---|---|---|
| WETH (LRT/eMode loop) | $37.0M | $33.0M |
| USDe (Ethena/Pendle direct) | $12.7M | $6.6M |
| Stablecoin borrows by Ethena holders | $5.8M | $5.68M |
| GHO (ACI-led Aavenomics) | $12.7M | $4.1M |
All four confirmed on-chain. The gap between TokenLogic full-year figures and on-chain snapshots reflects rate environment changes (ETH $3,800 mid-2025 vs $2,051 now, lower GHO borrow rates), not volume decline. WETH: 97.6% of borrows from LRT/LST holders. Ethena stablecoin borrows: 896 borrowers, $1.58B debt, confirmed within 2%. GHO supply at all-time high ($527M) across 9 chains. ACI-designed strategies drive 48%+ of protocol revenue by either measure.
Beyond those strategies, ACI-onboarded assets generate $9.3M/yr in direct protocol revenue at current rates (RLUSD $1.6M, USDG $0.4M, USDtb $0.3M, EURC $0.25M, cbBTC $0.1M, and others). ACI-deployed chains (Plasma, Ink, Sonic) generate $6.8M/yr total.
Ethena collateral holders (sUSDe, USDe, eUSDe, and Pendle PT depositors) borrow $1.58B in stablecoins against their positions: $555M USDC and $1.02B USDT. That is 20.6% of all USDC borrows and 28.8% of all USDT borrows on Aave V3 Ethereum. The Reserve Factor revenue from these borrows ($5.8M/yr) is directly attributable to the Ethena strategy: without the collateral onboarding and eMode configuration we designed, this borrow demand does not exist on Aave. The LRT loop also drives stablecoin borrow demand not captured in the 48% floor, pushing the true figure higher.
Revenue by Chain
Plasma’s accelerating trajectory is detailed below.
Revenue by Asset (2025)
On-chain verification: V3 pool scan confirms WETH at $33.0M/yr at current rates (gap vs $37.0M = ETH price decline, not reduced activity; ETH-denominated borrowing grew +12%).
The Plasma Story
Plasma is the clearest single example. We facilitated the deployment via Skywards, managed $7.7M in incentive programs (WXPL + USDT0 + ETHFI), and the result was $2.3B TVL and $3M revenue in six months. Annualizing at current 30d rate: $6.5M/year. On-chain scan (Feb 16, 2026) independently confirms $5.9M/yr, 7.5% of total V3 protocol revenue. The Plasma airdrop received by the DAO was secured through our coordination.
Nothing Lasts Forever
The Ethena footprint contracted from $6.8B to $2.35B as market conditions shifted and PT batches matured. The LRT engine will eventually mature too. Revenue engines decay faster than protocol upgrades ship. Someone has to run the current one while the next one is being built.
Since the Ethena peak, we have onboarded or are actively shepherding through governance the next generation of revenue-generating assets: Syrup (syrupUSDT, syrupUSDC), USDG, Strata srUSDe PT tokens, frxUSD, USDai/sUSDai, and stAVAX. The cycle is continuous: identify opportunity, build it, optimize it, find the next one.
2. Operations & Infrastructure
Revenue strategy is half the job. The other half is running the machine — governance, incentives, partnerships, infrastructure. Every major initiative requires the full SP ecosystem: we draft the proposal, align with Chaos Labs and LlamaRisk on risk, coordinate BGD on implementation, and shepherd it through TEMP CHECK, ARFC, AIP, on-chain execution. The outcome depends on every team in that chain.
Governance
| Metric | 2024 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topics created | 206 | 281 | +36% |
| Posts created | 567 | 744 | +31% |
| Posts read | 7,400 | 10,000 | +35% |
| Topics viewed | 1,100 | 1,600 | +46% |
| Snapshot Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Governance actions since ACI started (Nov 2022) | 1,140 deduplicated actions |
| Originated by ACI | 61% — 845 Snapshots and on-chain AIPs across 5 team wallets |
| Proposals processed in 2025 | 676 |
The next-largest recipient of DAO funds has put 28 proposals on-chain in the same period. Nearly half were about its own budget or products.
Governance is a shared effort. BGD contributes technical upgrade proposals, Chaos Labs contributes risk parameter updates, community members increasingly contribute through Skywards. Our focus is strategy, asset onboarding, chain deployments, incentives, and structural reform.
The Dolce Vita program reduced average time-to-first-response on governance forum topics from 300 hours to 48 hours. 6x faster. When you’re managing $27B in TVL, every day a parameter update sits waiting costs real money.
Orbit maintained delegate participation rates above 80% throughout 2025. To every delegate who showed up and voted throughout 2025: thank you. Without active delegates, proposals can’t reach quorum and governance stalls.
Incentive Deployment
We managed $101M in total incentive deployment in 2025: $21.2M from DAO treasury and $80M from external partners. Both were deployed through on-chain Liquidity Mining and the Merit system we built.
Supply campaigns (2025):
| Campaign | Budget | TVL Start | TVL End | Growth | Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base wstETH | $7,866 | $66.4M | $144.4M | +117% | $9,900/$1 |
| Base USDC Supply | $171K | $161.7M | $329.7M | +104% | $982/$1 |
| Sonic stS Supply | $78K | $9.8M | $34.4M | +249% | $315/$1 |
| PYUSD Supply | $260K | $11.4M | $17.4M | +53% | $23/$1 |
Total DAO-funded supply campaigns: $6.5M budget, $339M net TVL growth.
Borrow campaigns (2025):
| Campaign | Budget | TVL Start | TVL End | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base EURC Borrow | $202K | $882K | $19.1M | +2,069% |
| Ethereum EURC Borrow | $105K | $1.5M | $36.6M | +2,369% |
| Base USDC Borrow | $1.86M | $142.3M | $245.0M | +72% |
| Gnosis EURe Borrow | $299K | $3.6M | $17.3M | +380% |
Total borrow campaigns: $2.7M budget, $168M net TVL growth (109% growth rate).
The sGHO campaign ($12M budget) grew staked GHO from $122M to $265M (+117%), supporting GHO peg stability and adoption.
On the partner side, Merit-as-a-Service (MASIv) attracted $80M in externally funded campaigns via the Merit/Merkl infrastructure, generating $5.55B in peak TVL growth. The largest: Ripple’s $8.5M RLUSD supply campaign, which grew TVL from $4.9M to $382.8M (+7,707%). These programs were funded by external partners (Ripple, Ethena, Plasma, Stader, and others), not the DAO treasury. They required our infrastructure and relationships, built jointly with TokenLogic’s analytics and BD work, to execute.
Not every campaign hit its targets. USDS saw TVL decline. Sonic USDC dropped 17%. We cut both and redirected to campaigns with better unit economics instead of chasing losing positions. When partner campaigns underperform, the DAO bears no financial downside — that is the point of MASIv.
We show the misses because we can afford to. USDS underperformed, so we cut spending and redirected to campaigns with better unit economics. Sonic USDC declined, so we pulled the budget instead of chasing a losing position. When the track record is this strong, showing what didn’t work makes the case for what did.
Asset Onboarding & BD
Skywards helps protocols navigate Aave governance to onboard their assets. In 2025, it facilitated 15+ major proposals including chain deployments (Sonic, Ink, Plasma, MegaETH), asset listings (RLUSD, EURC, USDtb, ggAVAX, ETHx, cbBTC), the Chainlink SVR integration, HyperLend friendly fork recognition, SP Compensation Reform, and the AAVE Buyback Program. Every asset listed through Skywards generates ongoing revenue for the DAO. The RLUSD listing alone now generates revenue on a market with $600M+ TVL.
| Initiative | Value to DAO |
|---|---|
| Ethereum Foundation DeFi deployment | 30,800 ETH deposited (~$82M) |
| Arbitrum Treasury | 4,500 ETH deployed into Aave |
| Optimism Grants | ~200K OP |
| ZKsync Airdrop | $1.5-2M received by DAO |
| Plasma Airdrop | $13m at ATH received by DAO via ACI coordination |
| MASIv Partnerships | Circle, Tether, Ava Labs, Stader, Ripple, Ethena funding incentives |
Each item is verifiable on-chain or through public governance records.
The Ethereum Foundation deposited 30,800 ETH into Aave (~$82M at the time) as part of its 50K ETH DeFi strategy. On-chain confirmation (address 0x9fC3dc011b461664c835F2527fffb1169b3C213e, Feb 16, 2026): 31,405 ETH supplied across Core ($42M) and Lido ($20.2M) markets, with $2.07M GHO borrowed. The position deepens Aave’s WETH liquidity by $62M, enabling additional borrowing capacity for the LRT/eMode loop engine. We maintained a direct BD relationship with the EF throughout the process. Institutional capital at this scale does not arrive by accident. Aave’s risk framework provides the safety. The relationships open the door.
Strategic Authorship
Aavenomics. We authored and executed the overhaul: the $50M annual AAVE buyback program (now live), fee switch activation directing protocol revenue to the DAO, and Umbrella safety module redesign coordination. The buyback program is the single largest structural change to AAVE tokenomics since the LEND migration.
GHO: From $35M to $527M. GHO’s growth is a joint achievement with TokenLogic. We designed the sGHO staking framework, managed incentive programs ($12M in 2025), and drove cross-chain expansion to Base and Avalanche. TokenLogic managed GHO peg stability, borrow rate calibration, GSM operations, liquidity committee execution, and built the analytics infrastructure that informed every decision. Neither team could have delivered these results alone.
| Date | GHO Supply |
|---|---|
| Dec 2023 | $35M |
| Dec 2024 | $165M |
| Feb 2026 | $527M |
15x increase. GHO generated $12.7M in protocol revenue in 2025, making it the fourth-largest revenue source by asset. GHO outstanding remains at all-time highs ($527M). Aave Labs now highlights it as the main product on the Aave app interface.
SP Compensation Reform. We authored the framework that now governs how every service provider gets paid, and applied it to ourselves first. Prior to the reform, we had never requested AAVE token compensation.
Multichain Strategy. We proposed and executed the multichain focus strategy, including rationalizing underperforming V3 deployments to concentrate DAO resources on chains that generate meaningful revenue.
Infrastructure
3. Market Share
When our Phase III began (April 2024), Aave’s share of the DeFi active loan market was below 50%. By end of 2024, it reached 71.2%. As of February 2026, Aave holds 64.7% of active DeFi loans ($17.2B of $26.6B across top lending protocols).
Holding 65% in a market that gets more competitive every quarter is itself a result to be proud of. Compound, with no dedicated growth service provider, sits at $1.2B TVL and ~$26M revenue. Morpho, with significant VC funding, generates no protocol revenue. Same asset class, same market. The difference is execution.
Phase IV, “Road to 80,” targets 80% market share through incentive optimization, new chain deployments, and MASIv partnerships.
4. What It Costs
For context, current annual cost of every entity receiving DAO funds:
Sources: each SP’s most recent governance proposal on the Aave Governance Forum.
The entire service provider ecosystem costs ~$30.5M per year and generates $142.9M in protocol revenue. ACI is $3M of that — 10% — covering growth, incentives, partnerships, and governance execution.
5. What Would Aave Look Like Without ACI?
Fair question. Tokenholders should ask it about every service provider.
Without us:
- No incentive management. $101M in campaigns (DAO + partner-funded) would not have been designed, deployed, or optimized. Every competitor runs their own incentive programs. Without ours, Aave’s TVL growth stalls and competitors close the gap.
- No LRT revenue engine. The recursive loop that generates $37M/yr does not get built. weETH does not get onboarded. Reserve Factors do not get optimized. WETH borrows stay at $1.1B instead of $5.87B.
- No Ethena capture. At peak, $6.8B on Aave. Without us, that capital flows to Morpho, which generates zero protocol revenue from it.
- No Skywards pipeline. Asset onboarding would rely on individual proposers navigating governance alone. RLUSD, EURC, USDe, and dozens of other assets would have been listed later or not at all.
- No GHO growth engine. The sGHO framework, cross-chain expansion, and $12M in targeted incentives are our contribution to a joint effort with TokenLogic. Without our half, the growth engine stalls.
- No MASIv partnerships. $80M in external partner funding does not flow into Aave without a team managing those relationships.
- No governance throughput. 61% of all governance actions since ACI started (845 Snapshots and AIPs) and hundreds of forum responses. Without this, governance bottlenecks and the protocol cannot adapt to market conditions.
- No cross-SP coordination. Asset listings, chain deployments, and economic reforms each require alignment across risk, technical, treasury, and governance teams. Without someone running that pipeline, proposals slow down, partner capital arrives late, and opportunities get identified after the window closes. If at all.
- No Plasma. $2.3B TVL and $5.9M annualized revenue directly attributable to our deployment coordination and incentive management.
Execution is not a one-time event. Revenue engines decay. Without the next strategy already in the pipeline, growth reverses.
Conclusion
We have cost the Aave DAO $4.625M since November 2022. Protocol revenue grew from $5.2M to $141.8M annually. Active loan market share went from below 50% to 65%+. GHO went from $35M to $527M. At the current 30-day run rate ($218.8M annualized), the protocol generates our entire three-year compensation in about a week. For every dollar of revenue growth, ACI cost the DAO 3.4 cents.
Three questions for any entity spending DAO funds:
- What did you deliver? With verifiable on-chain evidence, and the governance infrastructure, coordination, and partnerships that produced those results.
- What did it cost? Total compensation, fully disclosed.
- What is the return? Revenue generated, TVL created, governance output.
Our answers are above.
The DAO is now evaluating a $51M request from Aave Labs — more than every other service provider combined. Before voting, tokenholders should ask the same three questions. This is what $4.625M over three years delivered, with on-chain evidence. Apply the same standard to a $51M ask.
¹ All revenue figures sourced from TokenLogic. Revenue represents total protocol revenue including interest income, flash loan fees, and liquidation fees. TVL data from DefiLlama. GHO supply from CoinGecko. Governance data from the Aave Governance Forum and Snapshot. All figures as of February 13, 2026. On-chain verification performed February 16, 2026 via direct V3 pool contract reads (getReserveData, totalSupply, Chainlink oracle prices) across 254 assets, 22 markets, 16 chains. Holder attribution via aToken/vToken Transfer log scanning of 42 token contracts covering 7,000+ unique borrowers. Full on-chain dataset and scanning methodology available for independent reproduction. We invite anyone to verify these numbers independently.