If the path is the opposite, my personal vote on Aave v4 activation will be pretty clear: No. Especially if we look at the few advantages of Aave V4 compared to Aave V3.6, plus the additional risk of a total codebase change even after audits.
7 Likes
Aave is a Protocol, Not a Private Startup: Who is in the Room?
@Stani, vague reassurances like “we are working on it” are no longer sufficient to stabilize the uncertainty surrounding the DAO.
Let’s be clear: Aave is a decentralized protocol owned by its stakeholders, not a private company. Yet, the most critical proposal in Aave’s history is currently being drafted in total isolation.
My questions are direct:
Who is at the table? If you are “working on a proposal,” are the major delegates, service providers, and partners involved in the drafting phase, or will this be another “take it or leave it” presentation?
Why the secrecy? Drafting solutions behind closed doors suggests a backroom negotiation style that contradicts the very essence of a DAO.
I previously opened a thread asking if the DAO has a “Plan B”, and the silence from both Labs and the major leadership has been deafening. This silence leads the community to believe either there is no plan, or that a deal is being cooked without us.
We don’t just want a “Solution” delivered to us; we want a transparent process. If the upcoming proposal doesn’t reflect a collaborative effort with the DAO’s key stakeholders, it risks meeting the same friction we’ve seen in recent weeks.
Stop treating the community as spectators. Aave belongs to the holders, and we deserve to know who is designing our future before it’s finalized.
3 Likes
Simple question requiring simple answers. @ACI @TokenLogic @bgdlabs @EzR3aL @WintermuteGovernance and other major delegates:
YES or NO: Are you involved in drafting Labs’ upcoming proposal?
Time to open Pandora’s box and see who’s really aligned with whom.
5 Likes
I’m not involved in this process.
4 Likes
Can a Unilateral Process Yield a Decentralized Result?
Forgive the skepticism, but how can a proposal be considered “mature” or “objective” if key stakeholders the DAO, partners, and community leaders are locked out of the drafting room?
It defies the very logic of DeFi to expect a fair, decentralized outcome from a completely isolated process.
Let’s not forget: This is the same Aave Labs that previously attempted to capture the IP and aave.com. Asking the community to trust a unilateral draft from a party with a clear conflict of interest contradicts the “natural flow of life.”
Without inclusion, there is no guarantee. A proposal written in a silo cannot serve a public protocol.
3 Likes
I want to propose something simple to move this forward, treat Aave v4 activation as gated by a few clear pre-conditions (“gating conditions”).
@Stani mentioned Aave Labs is working on a proposal, but without details the uncertainty remains. To avoid another cycle of misalignment and unnecessary back-and-forth, the key parties raised by @ApuMallku (major delegates + core service providers) should be explicitly included in the workstream. Otherwise, repeated vagueness and delays will be perceived as time-buying rather than collaboration.
My proposed gating conditions before the DAO considers activating v4:
-
Who is drafting, a clear list of participants (Labs/Avara + which delegates/SPs are involved) and how feedback is incorporated.
-
A firm timeline, target dates for draft publication, review window, and formal submission.
-
Guardrails, transparent, enforceable rules for Aave-branded surfaces and any off-protocol monetization (fee parameters, recipient addresses, who can change what, and under what process).
-
Ownership + mandate, a clear “DAO owns / builders steward” framework with scope, security standards, and enforcement/recourse.
If these conditions aren’t met, I believe the DAO should vote NO on Aave v4 activation until they are. This isn’t about blocking innovation, it’s about restoring governance credibility, removing market uncertainty, and ensuring v4 ships under a structure aligned with token holders.
7 Likes
Let’s say this clearly and plainly. The only reason Stani closed communication channels is to buy time. If there were a sincere intent for Aave, this proposal would right now be prepared together with the DAO, major investors, key partners, former founders, and community leaders. Instead, there is only silence. Where is the DAO and why is the DAO handing Aave’s fate into Stani’s hands? We understand that Stani cut off communication to buy time; that is obvious. But why is the DAO completely silent? Why is there absolutely no explanation or defense coming from governance?
2 Likes
Let it go, friend.
Labs has cornered this into a “take it or leave it” ultimatum. Service providers are exhausted and probably don’t want to risk defunding. Labs controls the voting power, so maintaining the illusion of decentralization is pointless.
The only positive: Labs might finally acknowledge that token utility is negligible and needs fixing—because “onchain governance rights” are clearly just a meme.
Compare to Sky: similarly concentrated voting power, but they’re offering 15% APY to stakers and allowing borrowing of USDS against staked positions.
AAVE will continue underperforming without tokenomics reform. We’re not in 2020 anymore. The governance narrative is pure smoke and mirrors.
1 Like
Dear all,
I believe that good things need time. In my opinion @MarcZeller summarized it well in the linked podcast: https://youtu.be/m1MIpN3ybrI?si=AmFoavd1TUq2WAe8.
In a nutshell, we all want a solid rule-based governance. Why else would we support a DAO. A few criteria should probably apply (not exhaustive):
- Marketing rights, legal entities, etc. belong to the DAO and nobody else
- All suppliers get the same treatment without exception (but maybe tiers)
- Owning (and staking) Aave is worthwhile for corresponding risk-takers
- Aave Labs gets a fair compensation for the transfer of its intellectual property
- A framework is created to foster the creation of use cases / applications
- Others?
A bit of patience is now required. A balanced governance needs to grow organically. I am convinced we are on a good path.
Warm regards, Samuel
2 Likes
I believe aave is becoming very slow in updating itself. We somehow have the most lindy defi protocol and the best place to leverage long on crypto assets with minimal costs and yet look at how aave price action is compared to hyperliquid.
I’m not saying we should build a perp protocol. But at least list major stocks and gold in size so large players can use it and borrow against their assets to bring more revenue in.
The whole focus of the aave team right now is on a boring save 6.5% on your dollar finance app. I don’t know why that’s the case and if even themselves will use their own app to save their money. (6.5% annual is good but no one i know is going to be interested in it.)
The whole point of aave is imo having the largest liquidity layer of defi and it should be used as a hub to have the most loans against most stablished assets like gold and tech stocks.
And i think the root cause is having a lot of talent which is just not joined as one team. Sure we need decentralization, but it’s comical for a 2 billion dollar project to discuss over stealing 10M revenue by the labs on a public forum. Just make everyone aligned by giving them aave stock options and hire eveyone under the same umbrella. I don’t get why we need ACI to be one entity and labs to be another. Just merge everything?
Bitwise has also chosen Morpho, following Coinbase’s wealth management plan that previously selected Morpho. Morpho is now vigorously developing its lending business, with its FDV already half that of Aave’s—making it a formidable competitor.
Aave must quickly address the alignment of interests between the DAO and the core team, unite, and accelerate efforts to secure institutional clients. Only with excellent DAO governance, aligned incentives, and an innovative team can Aave go further.
Do not become complacent—we must always remember the lesson of Nokia.
Critical context: Morpho token holders are in a significantly better position than AAVE holders.
Morpho’s IP, all apps on morpho(.)org, and social accounts are owned by the Morpho Association—a shareholder-free entity. No equity vs. token conflict.
Source: https://x.com/PaulFrambot/status/1999449640509604343
Can AAVE match this? Honestly, the AAVE vs Morpho risk/reward isn’t competitive right now. Morpho is executing better on business development AND they’ve structured asset/brand ownership far more intelligently for token holders.
16 days have passed since this post was written. What an embarrassing situation. We’re literally handing the competition free wins.
1 Like
Hello,
To be clear, no one on our side has been involved in this process, and to the best of our knowledge that’s the same with other service providers and independent delegates. We’ve had exactly zero discussions with Labs on this topic.
Factually, Stani cleared our communication channel history, unfollowed us on social media, and has shown no concrete commitment to engage in a discussion.
I will publish a longer response on this in the coming days, but the status quo is more than grim for Aave decentralization.
9 Likes
How does childish behavior from leadership inspire confidence in managing billions in TVL? This status quo needs to change—permanently.
5 Likes
Marc, the silence is alarming, but our fragmentation is the real danger. Why haven’t the DAO leadership, OGs, large investors, and key partners established a ‘Strategic Action Channel’ (via Discord or Zoom) to actively plan against this unilateral move?
Waiting is naive. Labs already holds the IP, Brand, and aave.com, and they will inevitably use this leverage to the fullest potentially even as blackmail. The reality is we are witnessing a dirty game: Labs seems to be buying time to burn DAO funds to finish the V4 code.
The nightmare scenario is that we finance the completion of V4, only for them to take the code, leverage their IP ownership, and walk away. If the DAO doesn’t organize a united front with its partners and investors now, we aren’t just losing a vote; we are financing our own capture.
1 Like
I’m tired of winning.
Congrats, Stani, on your non-existent proposal and all the unnecessary drama. AAVE is sitting at $140. You’ve erased hundreds of millions in market cap because you couldn’t execute basic damage control. Trust has been completely destroyed.
Every day that passes, whatever credibility remains evaporates further.
8 Likes
Observing Aave Labs members’ activity (replies to several more technical threads) while the hottest questions remain unanswered despite numerous reminders from SPs, delegates and community members is very disappointing, to say the least.
8 Likes
When can we expect Avara to finally address the elephant in the room?
The more time passes, the more tired we get
This situation is freaking annoying, token holders need more clarity on this massive IP issue
3 Likes
Please pick up the pace and provide the community with a rough progress update. As you mentioned, Aave’s market is a future multi-trillion-dollar RWA market. A prerequisite for achieving this goal is transparent and effective DAO governance. The longer it takes, the more long-term harm it will cause to the protocol.
Our competitor, Morpho, is taking advantage of this uncertainty to make aggressive advances. Don’t give our opponents a chance.
thanks
3 Likes