I’ve been following this discussion very closely, and I think it’s an important and legitimate one. The questions being raised around ownership, governance, alignment and long-term incentives clearly deserve thoughtful consideration.
That said, I believe there is a critical dimension that is being under-discussed in this thread: the agency problem and the confusion of roles between token holders, service providers, and the founding team.
Of course, many service providers are also token holders. That overlap is natural in DAOs. However, it does not eliminate the fact that service provision introduces additional incentives and constraints that are different from those of a purely passive or long-term token holder.
Many of the proposals and arguments presented here are reasonable when taken in isolation. However, it is hard to ignore that most of the strongest voices in this debate are also active service providers to the DAO, with direct economic and strategic incentives tied to how resources, responsibilities and control are allocated going forward.
This is not a criticism of service providers themselves, nor of the quality or importance of their work. On the contrary, Aave would not be where it is today without them. The point is simply that contribution and strategic mandate are not the same thing, and governance discussions should be explicit about that distinction.
Second, while it is true that multiple service providers have contributed meaningfully to Aave over time, they are not all equivalent in nature or impact. Aave Labs is not just another provider. It is the founding team, the origin of the protocol, the source of its strategic vision, and the group that has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to navigate complex market cycles while building one of the most successful DeFi protocols to date.
Placing the founding team on the same level as later-stage service providers, purely from a governance or ownership standpoint, fundamentally misunderstands how successful protocols are built and sustained.
Third, there seems to be an implicit assumption emerging that strategy could (or should) be defined collectively by a group of service providers who then coordinate execution among themselves. From a token holder perspective, this feels significantly less efficient and more fragile than the current model: a clear strategic leadership team supported by specialized, accountable providers.
The existing structure has worked exceptionally well so far. That does not mean it should never evolve, but it does mean that any change should meet a very high bar in terms of demonstrated necessity and expected benefit.
As a long-term token holder, I struggle to see why we would want to introduce major strategic uncertainty into one of DeFi’s most successful projects, especially when the proposed changes seem driven more by internal governance dynamics than by any clear failure of the current model. The market is already sensitive to this kind of uncertainty.
None of this means that questions around value capture, governance evolution, or token alignment should be dismissed. On the contrary, they are valid and necessary conversations. But they should be addressed in ways that strengthen alignment without undermining strategic clarity or proven leadership.
In my view, this discussion should be understood as important feedback for Aave Labs and the DAO to refine governance mechanisms — not as a mandate to redefine the strategic control of the protocol. Changing the strategic direction of one of DeFi’s most successful protocols, at this stage and in this manner, would be a mistake.