Great time to start the discussion!
I definitely think we’re building one of the most incredible innovations in finance here. 
On the note of origination fees, don’t quote me but I believe Compound charges no origination fees of any kind- and I think that’s not a bad idea.
First off, should we have a noticeable origination fee, we’d be locked into “second choice” territory in regards to Compound assuming similar rates. This is a big deal, because though Aave and Compound can (and should) be in a symbiotic relationship, Aave must cement its place in the standard borrowing niche.
Another point I’d like to make is that staking in the security module provides safety for liquidity providers, not borrowers. Borrowers already pay liquidity providers through interest, I fundamentally believe the course of action to take would be to redirect a small portion of this interest generated towards stakers.
In other words, Aave remains competitive, maintains its edge in having multiple markets (see and signal your vote on my UNI-V2 liquidity token market proposal here) and simultaneously rewards those who bear the heaviest risk.
It is definitely worth noting that the security module is seriously one of Aave’s biggest selling points. Especially as more traditional finance users get onboarded on to Aave. On the broader financial spectrum, receiving more than the average 0.05% APY on what’s essentially US dollars with in-built insurance against black swans is aavesome!
In Summary
For the following two reasons, I am leaning against implementing a loan origination fee in favor of an interest-redirection model:
- Compound, the biggest lending protocol in DeFi charges no origination fee (seemingly).
- The safety module benefits depositing more than borrowing.
Side note, regardless of the origination fee, governance can and should enact a Dev fund and a “treasury.” I totally agree with you there.
Let me know what you think about my input. I’m not a financial expert (yet), but I just wanted to voice my opinions. Thanks again for starting this discussion!
P.S. On flash loans, I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to redirect a portion of the fee towards safety module stakers, since flash loans are essentially (almost) risk-free and only require liquidity to function. Could be a good idea to think about this too. Flash loan fees are one of Aave’s most innovative value propositions, and their fees are an important incentive for liquidity providers