Stani,
Thank you for taking the time to post this.
If this marks the beginning of a more open and constructive posture, it is welcome. Since this dispute became public, roughly $500M of $AAVE market cap has been erased. Correlation is not causation, but markets price uncertainty, and the lack of direct engagement on core questions amplified that uncertainty. A clearer willingness to discuss substance is the right direction.
At the same time, the DAO should stay clear-eyed about incentives and patterns. We have seen a recurring dynamic where initial asks are positioned in a way that is difficult for token holders to accept, then reframed later as a “middle ground” after backlash. We saw versions of this around the V4 budget conversation, around Horizon’s framing, and again in this debate. I won’t speculate on intent. The structure speaks for itself: control of gateways and comms creates a permanent leverage advantage, and the DAO keeps getting dragged into reactive mode. The DAO needs an immune system against that dynamic, or we’ll keep repeating the same cycle whenever control and monetization are at stake.
This is why the end state matters more than tone. Aave’s strategic brand assets and gateways should belong entirely to a DAO-owned vehicle. Stewardship can be delegated back to Avara under a clear operational mandate and security standards. Monetization terms can be negotiated in a way that is fair to everyone involved. But ownership is the only durable foundation that prevents a return to the same asymmetry: when ownership sits outside the DAO, any “understanding” is ultimately voluntary, and the protocol’s distribution layer can be redirected without notice based on private incentives, regulatory comfort, or capital structure needs.
One principle should guide the next steps:
“Vague statements without clear and concise commitments should be discarded as performative.”
With that lens, we acknowledge and welcome your statement as a step toward the negotiating table. If this is a genuine commitment to engage on Phase 2 terms in good faith, it materially reduces the need for a Phase 1 re-run, because Phase 1’s purpose was to establish a mandate to bring the current holder to the table. The community has already demonstrated the opposite of apathy: record engagement, a thin margin, and a clear signal that token holders want enforceable alignment, not a blank check.
Now the priority should be Phase 2, done properly and calmly. That means moving from broad positioning to concrete, enforceable terms, and being explicit on the legal vehicle that will hold the assets, how it is governed, and how it is protected from capture. In practice, this should cover:
- what is being transferred (domains, handles, naming rights, trademarks, and related brand assets),
- what is being licensed back for day-to-day use (scope and duration),
- what operational and security standards apply to stewardship,
- what guardrails exist on unilateral monetization changes,
- what dispute-resolution and enforcement mechanisms apply if commitments are breached,
- how the framework remains stable across cycles, even if incentives or corporate priorities shift,
- and how token holders retain ultimate authority while day-to-day operators have clear mandates and accountability.
This is not about “winning” against anyone. Avara can thrive, and the DAO can thrive. But the structure must reflect reality: the DAO ecosystem has been the execution engine that kept Aave safe and dominant through multiple cycles, and it cannot remain structurally subordinated to unilateral control over the storefront and signage.
ACI is ready to help convene critical stakeholders for off-chain working sessions and translate the output into a clear Phase 2 proposal for the community to review. If we approach this with precision, enforceable commitments, and respect for governance process, Aave will come out of this stronger.
DeFi will win.