The Snapshot vote has wrapped up, and it has raised important questions about the relationship between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders. This is a productive discussion that’s essential for the long-term health of Aave.
While it’s been a bit hectic, debate and disagreement are features of decentralized governance.
I want to state clearly: I am committed to making the economic alignment between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders more clear. We haven’t done a great job explaining this and will do so going forward. Another thing that’s gotten lost in this conversation is that the DAO has earned $140M this year, more than the past three years combined, and $AAVE token holders have control over this treasury.
In the future, we’ll be more explicit about how products built by Aave Labs create value for the DAO and $AAVE token holders.
I also want to address my recent $15 million purchase of $AAVE. These tokens were not used to vote on the recent proposal and that was never my intention. This is my life’s work, and I am putting my own capital behind my conviction.
Lastly, the Aave ecosystem is large enough for many service providers to succeed, and we will continue to support and collaborate with teams building on the protocol. I am confident that by working together, we will build a stronger and more aligned future.
For the record, I voted Nay in-line with my previous posts.
I think @MarcZeller’s framing in this thread is materially biased, both before and after the vote. That shouldn’t go unnoticed, especially given ACI’s position as one of the largest delegates.
First, the “storefront vs engine” analogy is simply misleading. The core revenue engine of Aave has never been the UI monetization. The dominant revenue stream has always been the reserve factors at the protocol level, independent of who operates a frontend. The controversial UI fees created value primarily because users adopted it, not because it diverted economic rent away from the DAO. Treating this as a structural extraction problem misrepresents where value is actually generated (thanks to the whole bunch of SPs - including AL - as detailed in his post).
Second, the post-vote interpretation is selective. The Snapshot result was a clear rejection of the proposal: ~55% NAY, with one of the highest participation levels Aave governance ever. Reframing that outcome as “lack of endorsement of the status quo” is done in bad faith. A share of ABSTAIN votes were explicitly about process, timing, or escalation path, not opposition to Avara - like @TokenLogic. That distinction matters, and blurring it conveniently serves a narrative that did not win.
Third, governance legitimacy cuts both ways. Record turnout strengthens the outcome, it does not weaken it. After such participation, continuing to imply manipulation or bad faith from Stani or Emilio is not only unproductive, it’s irresponsible. If we want to defend good governance, we should also be willing to retract serious accusations when the data contradicts them.
I don’t understand why Marc contributes so much value on one side, then undermines it with this kind of narrative warfare on the other. My two cents: if you want a DAO-owned frontend, go build it, get funded, and compete on merit. It’s not that hard.
Hi Folks I hope everyone has had an enjoyable holiday period where ever you are in the world.
I deliberately stayed out of the original debate, as many of my arguments were being articulated very well by other contributors but read the discussion assiduously.
It is evident that Avara/labs have been and continue to integral to Aave’s success. Their technical leadership, vision, and continued investment are widely recognised. At the same time, there is a shared acknowledgement that communication can and should improve, and . addressing the key concerns raised—especially around decentralisation optics, DAO authority, and long-term alignment—will be essential to maintaining confidence.
Equally, the Aave Chan Initiative (ACI) has demonstrated a strong and consistent commitment to the DAO. However, as with all stakeholders, there may be value in reflection on how positions are communicated and how escalation is handled during sensitive governance moments & I speak as being one of the earliest delegates to Marc/The ACI.
Ultimately, all parties share the same goal: what is best for Aave. Achieving that requires constructive engagement, respect for all voices, and a collective effort to keep debate civil, transparent, and solutions-oriented. If approached in this spirit, this discussion can strengthen—not divide—the Aave ecosystem and set a healthier precedent for future governance decisions.
So come on folks as this is the season of goodwill let us continue the debate but remain civil to all parties and collectively drive Aave forward to dominance in both Defi and tradfi
Marc certainly has his biases, but the vote was a farce. Short notice, Christmas week, and without any discussion with the author of the proposal, who has said he would not have submitted this proposal as is.
It hasn’t settled anything and the author should have the opportunity to revise and submit their proposal as they intend it to be submitted, as is the normal process for governance.