# \[ARFC ADDENDUM\] Mandatory Disclosures and Conflict-of-Interest Voting Norms **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [February 3, 2026, 3:56pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-addendum-mandatory-disclosures-and-conflict-of-interest-voting-norms/23995 "2026-02-03T15:56:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![kberg](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/kberg/32/14627_2.png) [@kberg](https://governance.aave.com/u/kberg)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 1:35pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-addendum-mandatory-disclosures-and-conflict-of-interest-voting-norms/23995/7 "2026-02-04T13:35:52Z")
_ **Replying in a personal capacity here, not on behalf of Aave Labs.** _ Admittedly, I am very worried about creating an additional governance layer that is ruled by social agreement because it seems high risk at the scale Aave operates. My main concern is that it’s a system that is _guaranteed_ to be inconsistent. It relies on the community to monitor, identify, and punish infractions, which means enforcement is not based on an objective standard (i.e. an onchain/Snapshot vote outcome), but on who is paying attention and who can generate the most outrage. Some additional questions I have: - Who is responsible for creating and publishing the clean tally? - What is the process for deciding which votes to exclude? Is there an appeals process for someone whose vote is excluded? - Since the onchain vote is what actually matters, how would the clean tally be used to influence governance outcomes after the fact? Does that remove finality from onchain votes? I do agree that disclosing COIs upfront should be a part of the code of conduct, even in some cases where it may be obvious. But a social judgement system outside of voting is a slippery slope. --- _[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-addendum-mandatory-disclosures-and-conflict-of-interest-voting-norms/23995)._