It’s great to see the community’s activity on the discussion! I sincerely appreciate the contributions of everybody, regardless of their point of view, as this is what an active DAO is supposed to be.
I would like, though, to refocus a bit on some very important points that I tried to convey in the proposal text:
- It is understandable that people can become polarised on so fundamental topics like this. But this proposal is not a type of DAO vs Avara/Aave Labs at all. That is even paradoxical, considering that Avara/Aave Labs is one of the contributors. Sure, the proposal positive outcome will require action by Aave Labs, delivering assets officially to the DAO, but the same will happen with any asset held by any other party, like BGD Labs, or even ACI, requiring a rebranding/explicit consent to use “Aavechan”.
If some assets have more value than others is irrelevant at this stage, and only favors the case that AAVE token holders have control & ownership over those is, without any doubt, positive in nature. - This is no discussion of past/present/future merits by any party. Everybody has their own merit, and this proposal doesn’t try to either dismiss them or magnify them. Being an operational contributor to the Aave ecosystem should be (and it is) compensated, but that doesn’t mean that the contributor gets any type of ownership rights or control implicitly.
- And a high-level thought: it is the duty of all contributors to a plural system like the DAO to protect the DAO against themselves. And the more pivotal the role of that entity anyhow, the more focus should be on that. But the DAO itself should not really allow for that even to happen.
At Aave, we have always designed systems that are or progressively become trust-minimised, while keeping self-sustainability to keep iteration. If we don’t protect the organisation and frameworks that allow for that cycle to continue, we are lost.