That is pure conjecture. The investigation was on Aave not Stani. SEC at that time had seen DeFi as a threat. Please stick to facts. In the end Aave owns the IP. DAO’s responsibility is purely OnChain.
The effort you are putting in to attack and go after an individual is telling of the level of maturity being brought to this discussion. Not to mention the reaches you’re making.
If Aave Labs had asked the DAO straight up for money when funding was needed or to do this and share the profits to fund future operations they’d likely have gotten approval. The issue is they didn’t, they snuck this in because they wanted to keep 100% and they thought they could get away with never telling us. The relationship has gone from a friendly one to betrayal with that action. Maturity requires both sides to respect each other. Stani does not get to sell tokens for money then try to trick the people he sold tokens to to get even more money.
If you bring your private company public to raise funding and then sell shares, you don’t get to try to hide new sources or revenue and direct 100% to yourself now that you’ve diluted your ownership. This fancy thing where we pretend somehow that the legal entity is somehow a separate asset from the DAO that Stani sold tokens for is ridiculous and as I said the SEC likely would be open to pursuing this and I don’t think Stani want to risk it especially when the man at the top owns part of Aave DAO not Aave Labs. Stani sold us Aave tokens, he took the money, he doesn’t get to double dip by selling us our own brand back to us.
I’m not sure if this is helpful, but gmDAO went the path of becoming incorporated off-chain as an entity (🏫 Governance | Documentation). It could be that there is something to learn from their process, particularly if we are looking for an official “entity” to own brand assets.
Hello,
First, I would like to express gratitude to @eboado for the publication of this proposal, @EzR3aL for sparking this debate, and to the larger community for their engagement and contribution to this pivotal moment for Aave and for DAOs in general.
It’s my core belief that this proposal will bring clarity and will have a long-lasting impact on the intrinsic value of the $AAVE asset and on the model of DAOs.
The outcome of this proposal will determine what we, as holders of $AAVE, actually own when we go on secondary markets and buy the asset.
there’s a strong case to believe $AAVE investors have paid four times for the Aave brand, IP, strategic domains, and communication channels:
The current owner of these assets is Quantum Swam OÜ, an entity in Estonia incorporated for the purpose of creating the LEND token and funded by investors via the LEND ICO to finance the creation of the ancestor of Aave, Aave and the development of these assets.
The DAO paid a second time simultaneously through token dilution, attributing a large part of the LEND token supply to the genesis team. The genesis team, as they publicly communicated, still has a large treasury from this attribution, which they can mobilize as they see fit and which is now fully vested. They used part of this supply to do several funding rounds via VCs, and to sell on the secondary market, use these assets to stake and obtain revenue from it, and use it as collateral to obtain credit lines.
The DAO paid a third time through customer acquisition costs via liquidity mining financed by token dilution. These programs materially strengthened the Aave brand and contributed to building the user “muscle memory” of typing “aave.com” to access the protocol. SEO increasingly points to this domain; documentation and interfaces redirect to it; and articles, tutorials, and general discourse about Aave also reference it, compounding the value of these gateway assets over time.
The DAO paid a fourth time in generous service provider fees, making the genesis team a client of the DAO for a defined scope. As pointed out in previous discussions, these assets were part of the scope.
It appears to be a clear case that the DAO contributed hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of assets, paid in cash and tokens, making these assets extremely valuable.
It’s our belief that, as the DAO paid several times for these assets, the DAO is rightfully entitled to ownership of these assets, and the status quo delegating stewardship of these assets to Avara must be redefined in a way that protects the best interests of the DAO and, by extension, Aave token holders.
When we witness the events since the publication of @EzR3aL’s thread of questions, as a token holder and a delegate of the DAO, we can factually state:
Did not amplify a pivotal governance debate and this proposal, and did not provide neutral visibility to the community to form their own opinion, despite having precedence in communications on governance proposals, especially when they benefit Avara.
Shifted the narrative toward external talking points, which reduced the visibility and clarity of the governance discussion for the broader audience.
Emphasized a one-sided attribution of the Aave protocol’s success, while underweighting the material contributions of the community, builders, delegates, voters, and service providers.
From an observer’s perspective, the net effect of this recent channel management was to reduce exposure to the debate and proposal, in a way that favored the entity currently privileged by the status quo.
If some delegates and service providers didn’t have an audience of their own, and if the community didn’t amplify this debate with their own voice, this might have been successful. I express gratitude to everyone who participated and relayed the discussion and this proposal, as they have been invaluable in making the DAO’s voice and interests heard.
With this being said, it appears clear and factual that the best interests of the Aave DAO and, by extension, $AAVE token holders are aligned with the current proposal. This is why we are supportive of this proposal in general, but would like to point out strategic elements of the proposal we’re particularly in favor of:
From a position of ownership, the DAO can delegate usage and stewardship under explicit, enforceable terms, while ensuring the upside and strategic control of these assets ultimately accrue to the DAO and, by extension, $AAVE token holders.
Avara has demonstrated misalignment, as the status quo steward of Aave.com and communication channels, with the best interests of the $AAVE token holders and the DAO, and has mobilized these assets for their own interests. The relationship must be redefined to reach a more favorable power dynamic by returning all rights to a DAO-controlled entity.
The best interest of the $AAVE token holders and the DAO is to move from the current status quo to a healthier position of ownership and control, where day-to-day operations of these assets can be delegated, but only under explicit mandates and enforceable terms, with full rights ultimately residing in a DAO-controlled entity.
This is not about one party or entity in particular. It is about ensuring no third party can ever hold unilateral control again, and ensuring the DAO has the tools to enforce alignment with the best interests of the $AAVE token holders.
Usage by Avara of “Aave Labs” as a public name, and self-attribution by Avara team members of roles such as “CEO of Aave”, “CMO of Aave”, “VP of Engineering of Aave”, and so on, is detrimental to $AAVE token holders and the DAO whenever there is misalignment with token-holder interests, because it blurs the line between the DAO and a private entity in the eyes of the public.
To be consistent with our position, @ACI is ready to transfer any Aave-branded assets we may control (including domains, mascot-related IP, and other brand/IP rights) to a DAO-controlled vehicle under the same framework we are advocating for. If required for full alignment, we are also prepared to remove “Aave” from our company name and operate solely under “ACI” or undergo a rebrand.
We believe every service provider should be treated equally.
This is why we decided, and invite the community, to refer to this entity by its historical name, “Avara”, until this debate and proposal are resolved, to reduce confusion for the broader audience about what “Aave” represents.
Making this debate personal: this is a proposal about rightful ownership and $AAVE token alignment.
We will not participate in, or react to, any conversation of “Stani vs contributor XYZ”, “service provider XYZ vs Avara”, and so on. We intend to remain civil and focus on the core of this proposal.
“Great minds discuss models and concepts, small minds discuss people.”
We believe what is at play is the intrinsic value of $AAVE as an asset, by defining ownership of strategic assets and distribution.
This will have a long-lasting impact on DAOs in general. Aave is a role model in the industry; the outcome of this proposal will be monitored closely by the industry and will impact valuation models.
The question of IP ownership is extremely important, but it’s just one facet of a bigger issue: alignment between DAO and Labs. Aave has a massive opportunity ahead of it, to become the largest lending platform in the entire world. I think both DAO and Labs see this opportunity and are prepared to do what it takes to seize it. I also think it’s clear that Labs + DAO working together are far stronger than each working against each other. Therefore, all parties have an incentive to figure this out.
If the DAO does not have ownership over the Aave IP, then can we even call it the “Aave” DAO? What if Labs decides it wants to take away that right? Without IP, the DAO is just the governance module for smart contracts shipped by Labs, a module that could be potentially swapped out in the future. Therefore, the “full abstraction” model proposed by @BCV is untenable. The DAO cannot remain relevant if it focuses solely on managing onchain smart contracts.
One thing I don’t see emphasized is that regardless of fairness, Labs has formal ownership of the Aave IP (brand, logo, domain name, etc). I’m not a lawyer, so perhaps there’s an argument to be made that the DAO has a legal claim to these assets. In any case, possession is nine tenths of the law. Moreover, a lawsuit between DAO and Labs would likely be catastrophic for Aave. At best a lawsuit is mutually assured destruction.
What the DAO needs is to find some source of leverage over Labs. We shouldn’t rely on moralizing here. What’s in it for Labs to hand over IP rights to the DAO? I’m not sure I have a good answer. Perhaps the DAO can cease approving new forms of collateral? Refuse to govern v4 until a compromise is reached?
In order to be viable, this proposal ought to include some kind of mechanism that creates leverage. Without that, I don’t see why Labs would have any incentive to play along.
Thanks for the proposal. And thank EzR3aL and ACI for representing all of us small token holders. Hopefully we could resolve this. This is about ownership. This is about equity vs token. If the largest DAO in crypto could be potentially ‘rugged’ its most important assets, it could happen to literally anyone. Token ownership would be a joke. This crypto industry could never be as serious as Tradfi let alone challenge it or replace it. This is a critical moment for AAVE and a critical moment for the industry.
Totally in favor.
If the ARFC passes but the current IP holders choose not to cooperate, what’s the intended next step in practice?
Is the expectation just that this serves as a governance signal for renegotiation, or is there a defined escalation path (for example a DAO-controlled legal wrapper or other enforceable mechanism) that would be pursued afterward?
@white_shoals @Argonaut and related comments.
We believe it is important to focus on the proposal itself and its merits. At this stage, we should not speculate on the actions or reactions of any specific entity.
All precedent points to the DAO being sovereign. Before anticipating scenarios, the best course of action is to let token holders express themselves by participating in this discourse and, ultimately, through a vote.
If an entity decides to leverage its holdings to pursue its own interests over those of the DAO and $AAVE token holders, or decides not to recognize the legitimacy of an outcome supported by token holders, then and only then it will be up to the DAO to draw the necessary conclusions based on facts and outcomes, not speculation.
Until then, let’s focus on the substance of the proposal and invite everybody to participate freely, form their own opinions, and vote as they see fit.
Same thoughts here. We are already on the right path and I have complete trust in Stani, Emilio and Aave labs. I see no reason at all for a change in the proposed direction.
After reading all the comments and perspectives on this topic, I’m more inclined to shift my view toward the second option, which transforms the DAO into something closer to a public-company structure. Full abstraction would likely undermine efficiency and limit the potential of the entire structure.
I think the previously undeveloped and hostile regulatory environment has made people hesitant to choose this path. However, from what I can see, the regulatory landscape is evolving, and hopefully DAOs can eventually be transformed into public companies.
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:
Full support for the proposal.
We are in critical junction where the strength of the DAO will be defined. If DAO is unable to prove itself as the rightful owner of what has been paid by it, then the governance theater should stop.
It is very important that everyone understands what is on the line here.
My concern is the SEC already came after DeFi, no regulatory body will allow a faceless (where faceless here is define as no easily accessible persons) DAO to operate in a heavily regulated space and where compliance is a must. They won’t risk it. They will just see DAOs as a shadowy group with little liability regardless of the fact that isn’t true.
I just feel a DAO is also much slower to react to protecting IP where it might be infringed upon by those running phishing campaigns or scams.
In addition @MarcZeller mentions 100s of millions being spent with no breakdown. I don’t think the DAO can be taken serious and I don’t think the DAO understands the incredible risk it would be responsible for.
It’s like a leaseholder purchasing a house and then asking for the deed of the house because they’ve lived their long enough. It doesn’t work that way. Should have had the foresight of IP ownership long before.
I am frustrated that this has caused so much noise than needed to be.
@narok Apologies if I got your comment wrong. DAO governance has value 100% but not value over everything. It’s not an all or nothing situation, it’s not a governance theatre and not relinquishing IP rights doesn’t add to misalignments. It is outside of the purview of the DAO.
I’m broadly in favor of the “Ownership” direction in Phase 1, strategic Aave brand assets (domains, trademarks, official social handles, key org accounts) should ultimately be owned by the DAO, ideally via a DAO-controlled legal wrapper, to reduce principal/agent risk and long-term misalignment.
That said, I strongly support this only if the follow-up AIP includes:
DAO ownership is a yes for me, but we must avoid creating new operational/security risks while implementing it
I think you are missing the point. It’s about having a legal wrapper for the DAO to be able to react fast, have someone in place to manage things and have full control of the brand. It would eventually make things move faster and easier in man ways as most partner want a counterparty to sign a contract against, for example a CEX. Right now it’s individual SP signing these. But what if they leave?
If it’s the DAO signing it, it doesn’t matter. It’s always on control of whoever contributes and has a contract with the DAO.
As this proposal puts the foundation to a more collation environment and openness.
I cannot see how It will handle the biggest issue the DAO has right now that is branding and legal rights.
I think we need to explore legal entities like Wyoming DAO LLC that will enable Aave DAO to take ownership of their branding and rights legally and in a formal way to ensure that blockchain DAO and Legal DAO interest are aligned.
Formalizing the DAO in a legal structure will preserve stability and maintain aligned the DAO with his formal entity so actual token holders could enforce their will in a formal manner without relaying in other parties that could or couldn’t be aligned with the actual token holders.
From our perspective, the principle here is foundational and, frankly, long overdue.
A decentralized autonomous organization cannot be meaningfully autonomous if part of its most critical soft assets, such as its brand identity, communication channels, and primary gateways, remain under the unilateral control of any single private entity, however well-intentioned.
The implicit stewardship model served Aave well during its early growth. Still, as the protocol matures and billions flow through its infrastructure, token holders deserve explicit ownership and enforceable recourse, rather than trust-based arrangements that could be easily revoked, ignored, or leveraged for private benefit at any time.
This proposal is very timely considering recent events, and it also correctly frames the issue as a structural problem rather than adversarial; this is not about Aave Labs vs the DAO, but about ensuring that the DAO’s sovereignty is substantive rather than nominal.
Supporting this ARFC is simply affirming what AAVE holders should have always expected: that the brand built on their capital and participation belongs to them, and any party operating under that brand does so as a service provider, not as a proprietor or sole owner.
On the topic of a legal wrapper, at this point in the DAOs maturity, we should explore setting up a legal wrapper to ensure that the DAO would not require intermedaries for legal purposes while running day to day operations and interactions with third parties.
I think the capability of a legal wrapper will ultimately determine the outcome of this discussion. If it allows a DAO to effectively connect its on-chain and real-world structures, then there’s not much left to debate in terms of what benefits the DAO. That said, this is still a relatively unexplored area, and I’m not sure whether there’s much precedent from other protocols.
There are plenty protocols doing this. API3, Lido and many others. It’s nothing new. Just nowadays more ways to do it and more easily.
Strongly support this all. Minimizing key man risk as it pertains to these assets which are core to the Aave project is undeniably what’s best for $AAVE. Things like Brand, IP, Domain, FE should be owned by the DAO and delegated for purpose, by token holders, to a service provider. Many thanks to @EzR3aL @eboado @MarcZeller for sparking this and continued pushing this effort forward.