We acknowledge the unilateral decision by @AaveLabs to escalate this proposal to the Snapshot vote stage despite unresolved discussion, an absence of clear consensus, and repeated refusals to address direct, concrete questions raised by delegates and token holders.
This escalation was compounded by process and timing choices that will materially reduce potential community participation:
- It was done without informing or obtaining consent from @eboado, the proposal author.
- It was pushed during the holiday period, which multiple large holders, investors, and institutions have flagged as one of the worst windows for a high-stakes governance vote given internal coordination constraints.
- It followed a recent wave of delegations to new or previously inactive delegates with significant voting power. Delegations are legitimate by design, but the timing and concentration add to the perception of a rushed escalation optimized for outcome rather than legitimacy.
- Official Aave communication channels relayed this debate only after escalation to Snapshot. Because voting power is snapshotted at vote creation, late amplification materially reduces the ability of the broader community to mobilize, withdraw voting power from CeFi or L2s if needed, delegate, and form an informed opinion. A non-trivial portion of the community is likely learning about this debate only now, after the snapshot has already been taken.
What started as a push for clarity and a more fair relationship between token holders and the current stewards, instead of today’s asymmetric dynamic, is now turning into a hostile takeover attempt by Labs.
This did not have to escalate this way. Avara could have materially reduced the risk by engaging differently earlier in the process. When initial concerns were raised about a lack of communication, a direct response and a clear commitment to engage on substance would have helped. Instead, the discussion drifted into dismissiveness, deflection, and a communications approach that many token holders perceived as contemptuous of legitimate concerns. That dynamic created noise and confusion, and made it harder for the community to form an informed view in a neutral environment.
Most importantly, this could have been de-risked by supporting a structured path: treat this proposal as phase one (a mandate), and publicly commit to phase two (a good-faith negotiation on terms) with the DAO, service providers, and delegates. Answering direct questions concisely, committing to sit at the table for phase two, and ensuring official channels provided timely, neutral visibility before escalation would have strengthened legitimacy and avoided the current adversarial posture.
The Snapshot vote has not opened yet, but whatever the outcome, $AAVE token holders will have clearer visibility into the intent, posture, and methods of @AaveLabs. The market’s valuation model and public perception will adjust accordingly.
Ultimately, when the DAO is not respected and legitimate concerns from token holders are ignored, rational actors switch to the most efficient way to vote: with their bags.
A truly sad outcome, and one that was entirely preventable.