[ARFC] $AAVE token alignment. Phase 1 - Ownership

[EzR3aL]

So assuming there is a clear path provided and the legal structure would be clear and everyone around it (SP, tokenholder, etc.) would support it.
Would you personally support it as well?

I agree that legal-wise the DAO should look for someone independent taking a look into this matter and then decide for the best option available.
And btw, the DAO actually already has a BVI that was created for this proposal Draft Documents for Aave RWA Legal Structure
Update on AIP-331 - Onboarding Centrifuge Prime - #3 by GraysonAlto

And again for everyone reading this, its just about securing the Aave brand and the DAO. No one will be “kicked” or shall leave the DAO as a SP.
Just a clear, legal framework for the DAO and its operations, so that it can still exist in 100 years with aave.com maintained by whoever at that time, doesn’t matter cause the DAO controls it anyway.

[JosueMpia]

@EzR3aL

And again for everyone reading this, its just about securing the Aave brand and the DAO.

100% agree here.

As much as I love Stani, we’re now stuck defending on Twitter about “Aave App“ and who is actually providing the $1 million insurance, and whether or not it’s part of Aave Umbrella.

See what we mean?… If the DAO isn’t involved, the naming is misleading. Why associate the DAO with it in the first place? Just one example by the way.

Anyway, I will vote “YAE“ with my Aave tokens just to bring some clarity on the brand. That’s all. All love and respect to the Aave Labs.

[dabit3]

“Don’t be Saddam, the former president of Iraq”, “Joined 55 mins ago”. it seems some of these comments are now coming from bots and fake accounts. is there a way to limit comments to verified, real accounts?

[kov0x]

@JosueMpia

Anyway, I will vote “YAE“ with my Aave tokens just to bring some clarity on the brand. That’s all. All love and respect to the Aave Labs.

Couldn’t have said this better. We’ll do the same at notrustverify, for the sake of clarity and transparence, as all we want is to make Aave stronger and more resilient.

[EzR3aL]

I am actively moderating the forum. He has been warned and the next will result in being muted.

[CrypValue]

The discussion currently taking place around Aave Labs and Aave DAO goes far beyond Aave itself.

It has captured the attention of the entire DeFi ecosystem, and even the broader Web3 industry.

The decision Aave makes next will not only shape its own future, but may also influence the direction of the entire industry.

In many ways, Aave is setting a precedent — creating a reference model for how DAOs confront their hardest structural questions.

I strongly agree with @Jordan that “this is one of the most important DAO discussions in DeFi.”

At its core, this debate touches on a fundamental, unresolved question in DeFi:

What is the true nature of DeFi token value?

How should the interests of equity holders and token holders be aligned — or reconciled — when conflicts arise?

This is not an Aave-specific issue. It exists across DeFi, and so far, there has been no universally accepted answer.

We can see similar unresolved tensions in projects like Uniswap and UNI, among many others.

Aave has always been a pioneer. Once again, it is standing at the forefront of DeFi by confronting this issue head-on.

Whatever solution emerges here will serve as a benchmark for DeFi tokens across the ecosystem.

In historical terms, this moment feels akin to the debates of the American Founders when drafting the U.S. Constitution — not because the answers are easy, but because the questions are foundational.

The world is watching closely.

[dennisonbertram]

It’s probably worth noting that Uniswap Labs owns the Uniswap trademark and domain. The recent “unification” proposal commits labs to dropping the fee on Uniswap protocol services, but in exchange receiving 20m UNI per year from the Uniswap Treasury. This solves (for the most part) the alignment issues, as Labs has exposure to the token and is paid in it so their interest it in driving volume through the protocol itself where fee’s would be captured.

It doesn’t solve the problem of Labs generating new revenue streams elsewhere if it sees a greater opportunity elsewhere, but if they were to ever leave as a service provider, the DAO could simply pay someone else too.

[r0mul0]

Hi Sid, could you clarify how Areta is gonna vote about this proposal?

[white_shoals]

@dennisonbertram

The worst thing to happen to Aave would be the perception by the integrators of the traditional financial system that they do not have a reliable counterparty with which to deal.

No financial system wants to have a DAO as a counterparty. We’ve seen it over and over. The traditional corporate world wants to know exactly who they are speaking with.

I think this is an important point. Stani and Avara are some of the biggest assets Aave has right now and seem well prepared to bring mainstream tradfi into the Aave ecosystem. You make a very convincing argument that the DAO should not be spearheading these types of initiatives.

With that said, I still think it now is the time to codify the relationship between the DAO and other parties in the Aave ecosystem. If the DAO does not have ultimate ownership over the IP, then will $AAVE have any meaningful way to capture the future upside of all the growth we have ahead of us? To me this is less about fairness and decentralization purity and more about determining whether the token will have value long term?

[corce]

With this proposal, will it finally be possible to use all products on the same domain? For example, the rewards system, Merit, was used on a different domain, which is unfamiliar and confusing for users.

[BigIdeas]

@9PashaE6ashu

There have been clear signs of inauthentic engagement, including newly created or low-activity accounts rapidly accumulating likes within a very short timeframe, as well as rage-baiting behavior from apparent alt accounts of Aave Labs employee. Alongside this, there has been a consistent pattern of shifting the topic of discussion and misrepresenting facts across multiple social platforms. Instead of providing clear answers to direct questions, the conversation has largely consisted of excessive rhetoric with no substantive responses. At the same time, various forms of pressure have been applied, ranging from veiled threats to intimidation tactics.

Gnosis DAO reported similar when they began discussing kicking KPK, a Stani owned company who shares a bunch of employees/owners with CoWswap such that I suspect Stani also owns a part of CoWswap. I’ll note that Aave Labs has censored the reddit to block any discussion of these issues despite the reddit being the “Aave” reddit not the “Aavelabs” reddit.

”Wholeheartedly agree, but if you look at the kpk vote brigade against and new accounts being created I’m not sure we can expect too much from them…Most kpk accounts are literal employee bots, they have ZERO activity on the forum other than voting for and liking karpatkey proposals:

The fact they do this openly without embarrassment speaks volumes.”

[Ioannis]

DAO ownership is a yes for me, but we must avoid creating new operational/security risks while implementing it.

AAVE at my point of view is clearly the most successful project in the DeFi world, if we manage to give it more clarity and transparency then more people will be able to see its truly great potential, but we need to proceed with cautiousness and avoid all unnecessary risks. Therefore YES . And I hope we all understand how important is AAVE for the future of finance.

[Frida]

I tend to agree with Stani on this one.

The current structure—where Avara stewards the brand, infrastructure, and core IP—has delivered real innovation (Aave v3, v4, GHO ….). Even the recent feature added to Aave.com, which sparked debate, is proof of that: whatever metric used, it shows the value created for end users. Demanding asset disclosures at this stage weakens the very setup that made Aave a category leader. Let’s not punish what works.

I appreciate BGD and eboado for how they are driving this discussion - highly professional as always. TBH, I am disapointed - yet not surprised - at how some of the other large delegates have framed their POVs with a tone of accusation. Making this a public shitshow does not help the token holders.

[kov0x]

@Frida

The current structure—where Avara stewards the brand, infrastructure, and core IP—has delivered real innovation (Aave v3, v4, GHO ….). Even the recent feature added to Aave.com, which sparked debate, is proof of that: whatever metric used, it shows the value created for end users.

The real question is “why would this be different after Trademark and IP are transferred to the DAO?

They can keep doing great job, being compensated for that by the DAO, nothing is forced to change, compared to now, in terms of operations and value for users.

[r0mul0]

“The recent proposal is framed as decentralization, but in practice it would handicap the entity most responsible for Aave’s success, and it looks almost like a coordinated power grab.
A large part of why Aave became the largest lending protocol was because of Aave Labs.
And world-class software isn’t built by committees of contractors and rotating service providers.”

All of this is particularly concerning considering that the power would move to an organization
like ACI that has always demonstrated hostility towards AAVE labs.

Anyone who has tried to use the merit campaigns has experienced the lack
of transparency in how rewards are calculated, the frequent delays
and manually run operations, the lack of support with most questions
going unanswered or users being personally offended or just resolved blaming AAVE labs for wrong information in “their ui”.

[Ethicalprofit]

Sorry, but this answer is a complete deflection. You have not addressed any of the points. Very disappointing.

You just say “we grew a lot and any complexity we introduce could disrupt that growth trajectory”

Do you also ask yourself that with every new product and update you introduce? Of course not, complexity is added constantly as the organization grows, by design. We should only worry about adding complexity that adds no value. Moreover, I think this is not adding complexity, it’s more about a restructuring of an existing thing. It’s really quite simple. It prevents nothing in the current vision or strategy, infact, it amplifies the true Aave DAO vision.

Aaves growth and Aave Labs + your abilities are not in question. Aave Labs and your personal integrity and the DAO’s longterm value and reason to exist are in question. The Aave community wants you to lead the ship as their DAO appointed captain, but not if the captain goes rogue and steals the ship from the community. Or maintains the ability to do so in the future. Then the community is better off with a different captain, under a structure that cannot be killed.

I think @wlw gave excellent points. The attack vector for state entities and otherwise to target a centralized actor are real. The risks of a centralized entity getting compromised internally in other ways are real. So are the benefits of credible neutrality for a DeFi protocol that is targeting global reach, of attracting a larger set of users, builders, companies, and opposed (state) actors with varying interests.

This is all aside from the larger point, that the IP clearly belongs to the DAO tokenholders. Legally and ethically.

If the IP stays with Aave Labs, under centralized control, I am quite certain $AAVE will trade at a material discount to any cashflows, whereas if the IP is where it should be, the $AAVE token will realize a materially higher value relative to its cashflows. Imagine owning $AAPL, but when APPL suddenly owned none of its IP. It would probably trade at 50% of current value. And if AAPL on top of that, was able to unde founder discretion siphon away (without shareholder vote), part of its topline revenue to a offshore company that carried the same brand name (but where the founder owned most of the shares), it would probably be further discounted.

Why will you not address the points? Give actual for- and against arguments, instead of a vague deflection.

To me, absent any other real reasons provided, it is becoming clear that the only reason you don’t want it is for the reason that you cannot say out loud: because you own a much larger % of the equity and because you want complete control. Self-interest. I hope im wrong, but it appears true colours are being revealed. Ultimately, it might seem like the most economically beneficial thing for you in the shortterm, but I think in the long-term you give away more personal value as well. At your own cost, and that of the DAO.

Anyway, I will vote YES. If the vote goes NO, I will simply take my loss, sell my AAVE and move on. If the token does not own its core assets, it will lose most of its value to me. Will also withdraw all my USDC and crypto deposits currently within Aave, and redeploy within more robust and more aligned protocols, such as Morpho and others.

My last 2 cents are that I sincerely hope the vote will not be manipulated with team-controlled tokens and that the team will honour the outcome of the vote. Lastly, imo, the cleanest and most ethical thing to do here for a founder, is to abstain from vote. Or, at the very least disclose how many tokens you have and how many you will vote with. This would be the most transparent thing, for someone with outsized ownership, protocol influence, and most intimately aware with the governance mechanics of winning a vote.

Further, for transparency of interests, Aave Labs should also disclose the % ownership in Aave Labs. So we know your interest on tokens versus equity, but also that of other actors. As I understand most VC’s have bought only tokens, but some have bought equity + tokens. Please share the cap table with all actors so all interests are clear.

[itsSaiyan]

A lot of good points have been raised here. While the discussion is productive, I will take a more nuanced take and have a healthy discussion - also with the Aave Labs team involved before we move this further. As important as this discussion is, it would be my advise to take this step by step and to not destroy what we have going for us here. That said, my response to this important AIP is:

The AAVE token must be at the center of everything - this is non-negotiable for the long-term success of the protocol. The phrase “If you own AAVE, you own Aave” should be our north star, and ultimately the DAO must control the Aave brand. Every incentive in the ecosystem must align in the same direction: growing Aave’s dominance and ensuring that success flows directly to AAVE token holders.

We are at an inflection point where Aave is extraordinarily successful - $150mm in annual DAO revenue, world-class service providers, sustainable tokenomics, and massive growth ahead with V4 and Horizon. The real wave of tokenization hasn’t even begun. It is therefore extremely important in my opinion that we should in no way or shape handcuff the Aave Labs team at the current moment. We need to capture trillions in TVL, not jeopardize what we’ve built by moving too fast on governance changes that could slow down the Aave Labs team and thus the speed of execution.

Right now we have a critical misalignment that must be addressed: When new verticals launch, this must compound back to the token, while the Aave Labs team should also be financially incentivized to build good products and integrations. The brand’s value should accrue to those who own the protocol. It is about ensuring that believing in Aave’s future means holding AAVE is the optimal way to capture that upside.

But we cannot handcuff the team that delivered this success. A large part of our growth stems from the Aave Labs team’s ability to ship rapidly and execute decisively. They should continue serving as the primary point of contact for external parties, especially with billions in deposits coming from the permissioned RWA space on Aave Horizon. Going “nuclear” and rushing this proposal to a vote will harm the Aave brand, create confusion, and give competitors a narrative to exploit.

If brand ownership is too harmful for the Aave Labs team in terms of slowing down execution and therfore growth, we can ensure service providers and Labs are compensated in ways that align their success with AAVE token performance.

The opportunity ahead is too massive to jeopardize with rushed governance. Aave is positioned to dominate tokenization and reach hundreds of billions in TVL in the coming years. Let’s not lose sight of this bigger picture by creating unnecessary friction at critical growth moment.

I strongly encourage the Aave Labs team to join this discussion and share their perspective on how trademark ownership structures could impact their ability to execute. Specifically, it would be valuable to understand:

• Their take on brand ownership, and how specifical it would harm their ability to execute
• What alternative mechanisms could strengthen AAVE token value accrual while maintaining operational efficiency.

Let’s get this right. We can achieve the vision of “If you own AAVE, you own Aave” while preserving what makes this protocol exceptional. The AAVE token should be the gravitational center where brand ownership, value capture, and all ecosystem incentives converge. But we must do this thoughtfully, collaboratively, and in measured steps - not by rushing a vote that could damage the execution capabilities that will take us to trillions in TVL.

[retail]

Hello everyone - new retail account here.

From an outsider’s perspective, the current discussion highlights a classic principal–agent problem. The Aave DAO is the principal, while Aave Labs acts as the agent with significant execution capabilities and, at present, stronger bargaining power. This asymmetry makes it possible for Aave Labs to introduce interface-level changes (such as the CoW Swap integration) without prior DAO consultation, which in turn has prompted the current discussion around IP ownership and alignment.

In that context, I want to acknowledge that Aave Labs’ execution over many years has been central to Aave’s success, and that preserving strong incentives for continued high-quality development is critical for the protocol’s long-term trajectory.

My expectation is that this specific proposal is unlikely to pass in its current form. Stani has clearly articulated concerns around timing and process, particularly the fact that this is an empty-payload vote addressing a complex legal and operational issue. That reaction is understandable.

At the same time, it seems equally clear that an unresolved governance and alignment issue has now been identified. Some form of compromise that preserves Aave Labs’ ability to execute and innovate while strengthening the position of token holders appears necessary over the medium term. Regulatory considerations also make long-term clarity around ownership, control, and accountability beneficial for all parties.

As a small token holder, my primary concern is reducing long-term governance and regulatory risk rather than maximizing short-term revenue.

For these reasons, I would encourage serious stakeholders to pursue a structured follow-up process (for example, working groups or scoped temp checks) aimed at addressing these concerns without disrupting Aave’s growth trajectory. Now that the issue is openly discussed, I do not expect unilateral interface changes of this nature to be repeated without engagement, as transparency and scrutiny are much higher.

My view is that gaining clarity on these questions ultimately benefits everyone, especially smaller token holders, even if there is no immediate or short-term change. Establishing clear expectations and processes today reduces long-term risk and strengthens the ecosystem as a whole.

Thank you for the thoughtful discussion so far.

[Tor_GAINS]

No one ever claimed that the brand assets would be transferred to ACI. The proposal clearly states they would be transferred to the Aave DAO. Could you stop spreading the same lies again and again just to try to undermine the proposal?

This is sad and pathetic

Just to provide context. This isn’t speculation or emotional trading talk. I’ve been a long-time AAVE supporter. I’ve supported the protocol for years, DCA’d into the token consistently for 5 straight years, and today AAVE represents roughly 80% of my portfolio. I’ve also brought dozens of close friends into the ecosystem, some of whom now hold positions worth millions

For the first time since AAVE’s inception, I’m seriously considering exiting my position entirely, and I’m not alone. Many of the people I introduced to AAVE feel the same way. That should be alarming (however, I won’t do it because I firmly believe that DAO will emerge victorious from this crisis)

AAVE has enormous potential, but it’s being undermined by people who are trying to manipulate the narrative through fake accounts and disinformation, such as claims that ACI is aiming to “take control over the DAO”

These claims are simply untrue, yet they’re being amplified as if they were fact

Constructive criticism is healthy and necessary for any decentralized protocol. Disinformation is not. There should be zero tolerance for it. What’s happening right now is disgusting and unworthy of AAVE Labs

This needs to stop

[Tor_GAINS]

(post deleted by author)