Proposal: V3 license for Moola Market

Hello, my name is Patrick Baron and a core contributor to Moola Market.

The purpose of this post is to temperature check AAVE owners on authorizing a V3 Business License to Moola so that we may operate a V3 portal on Celo, a carbon-negative mobile-first EVM network that makes financial dApps and crypto payments accessible to anyone with a mobile phone.

Approving a business license for Moola protects the interest of AAVE owners because we earn additional revenue from a new ecosystem without cannibalizing existing revenue, we build an ecosystem around the Aave V3 codebase through cooperation, and we establish precedent for DAOs licensing open source software.

Proposed Terms:

Moola Market pays AAVE owners a licensing fee, paid 67% in AAVE and 33% in MOO (Moola’s governance token) and equal to 11.225% of the revenue factor earned during the licensing period.

How does this protect the interest of AAVE owners?

It was indicated that “the V3 code will be open sourced, together with the main V3 repo, for deployment on the Ethereum, Avalanche, and Polygon networks” (link). Moola is laser focused on serving the needs of Celo users, so approving a business license for Moola enables AAVE owners to earn additional revenue from the Celo ecosystem by deploying a fourth portal, without having to expend additional Aave core team resources or cannibalize existing revenue sources.

Some of Moola’s revenue generating integrations include: Ubeswap, Celo’s largest AMM (excluding Mento) who uses Moola Celo Dollars (mcUSD) and Moola Celo Euros (mcEUR) as the base tokens for incentivized liquidity pools; Poof Cash, a privacy protocol that uses Moola to enable private savings accounts and borrowing; GoodGhosting, a prize-linked savings application that uses Moola for yield generation; and Valora, the leading mobile wallet on Celo that enables users to text crypto payments to any phone number in their contact list.

Paying the licensing fee in AAVE and MOO, as a percentage of Moola’s revenue factor, lets AAVE owners capture the upside potential of Celo network adoption by creating an AAVE buyback mechanism on Celo, while also aligning AAVE and MOO owner’s interests.

Moola can contribute knowledge of best practices related to cross-chain deployments because we participated in the deployment of (and are cosigners on) the community owned Optics bridge that interconnects the Ethereum, Avalanche, Polygon, and Celo networks.

Another benefit to AAVE owners is that approving a business license for Moola establishes a precedent for AAVE owners, and DAOs more broadly, to protect their interests by licensing open source software and by growing the ecosystem through coordinated cooperation.

Moola is drafting a proposed software licensing agreement that AAVE owners can sign via on-chain governance vote, on behalf of the DAO. Since this sort of licensing arrangement is novel and untested from a legal standpoint, approving a license for Moola may also provide AAVE owners with standing to enforce claims against unauthorized use of the V3 software.

About Moola Market:

Moola’s mission is to democratize access to credit and yield by making borrowing and lending easily accessible for users on their mobile phones. Moola is the largest defi protocol on Celo by TVL (excluding Mento).

Moola launched a fork of Aave v1 in Nov 2020 as the first defi protocol on Celo. Moola participated in Celo Camp batch 2 and placed second on demo day. Moola also participated in the DeFi Alliance cohort 4 and is an alumni member.

Moola closed a $1.4m seed round led by Polychain Capital with participation from notable angels, and multiple Celo genesis validators.

Moola is following a path of progressive decentralization. The community treasury and governance decisions are currently controlled by a 6-of-10 multisig. In July, Moola launched MOO with the expectation that ownership of the treasury and governance decisions will be transferred to MOO owners.

In October, Moola initiated a community migration from V1 to V2 of the Aave contracts and successfully migrated $80m in TVL across 10k unique addresses.

Moola markets include Celo’s native asset (CELO), Celo Dollars (cUSD), and Celo Euros (cEUR), with Celo Brazilian Real (cREAL) anticipated to launch in January. is available in 12 languages, has over 27k users from 150 countries, and is optimized for use on mobile phones. Moola mTokens have been used to facilitate over $2.7B in transaction volume. Moola’s core team has 14 contributors.

I am very grateful to the Aave team and community for your hard work and innovative leadership that has enabled Moola to get to where we are today. I would be humbled for AAVE owners to support this proposal for our communities to coordinate on cooperation and enable Moola to start giving back.

:pray: :cow: :ghost:

Thank you for taking time to consider this proposal.

Moola Market links:

DeFi Llama


Wholeheartedly disagree with this proposal.

Directly from your audit: “The protocol inherits the vast majority of functionality from the Aave protocol, and their documentation can largely be relied upon for these configurations.”

Moola Protocol is a direct fork of Aave Protocol with basically zero new development. The governance token’s distribution is a complete joke with >40% of supply going to insiders with another 50% going to a “community treasury” controlled by those insiders. (33% of vested tokens on a 12 month linear unlock schedule)

Fee Revenue from Moola Protocol will be basically nonexistant & the MOO token distribution is terrible.


Very interesting and forward thinking approach.
From a risk/benefit approach, that allows Aave to be exposed to various emerging markets and continue to tackle real world use cases while having a positive impact at no cost — as Celo and moola approach is to serve the Unbanked.
This also allows both parties to experiment:
/1 Aave could test the concept of licensing the software (like Salesforce is doing) while generating revenues and also making a difference in emerging market (good for marketing).
Aave has not plan on deploying v3 on Celo anytime soon.
/2 moola could be compliant and focus on serving and developing a market Aave is not currently going after (Celo, mobile first and emerging market). It would also likely benefit > 40m users that has limited access to debt financing (via credit delegation).
What is the real downside ?


Congrats, forward thinking approach.
Like it or not please just be respectful — « joke » is inappropriate!

Thanks for your reply, @RyanRam

You are correct in pointing out that we’ve made minimal changes to the core Aave protocol. The only changes we’ve made are to the oracle price feeds because that was required to add markets for Celo stablecoins cUSD, cEUR, and cREAL. This was intentional because the core Aave protocol is battle tested and has a lot of valuable features that needed to be built out for the Celo ecosystem.

We’ve added many new developments at the application layer including building a private cUSD and cEUR savings and borrowing pool in coordination with

A twelve-month linear unlock schedule for MOO allows early Moola supporters to acquire a larger share of tokens earlier in the projects’ lifecycle.

Fee revenue from Moola in the first year was over $88,000 because Moola represents over 10% of the Celo ecosystem TVL. If you exclude Mento, Celo’s native stability mechanism, then Moola TVL represents 37% of the entire ecosystem.

MOO is >90% controlled by insiders and “governs” a minimal effort fork.

Truth hurts.

Minimal effort fork with 12 month lock up. Why should early supporters (VCs & Founders) be rewarded with a larger share of tokens so early in the project’s lifecycle if not much has been actually done?

What does Moola intend on innovating? As of right now you’ve raised over 1.2 million dollars by forking code & printed millions of $'s in your own token. All done off the backs of Aave developers who could’ve done the same thing in the current environment.

Apologies if I might seem harsh, but the optics don’t look good on first glance.

1 Like

No need to apologize.

Why should early supporters (VCs & Founders) be rewarded with a larger share of tokens so early in the project’s lifecycle if not much has been actually done?

This proposal is not seeking an investment from AAVE owners. It is requesting to buy a business license from AAVE owners because this is the licensing approach that the Aave community voted in favor of.

What does Moola intend on innovating?

Moola is innovating with to build the first private USD and EUR savings accounts.
Moola is innovated with the Celo Foundation to build the first defi enabled employer lending model.
Moola is innovating with Valora to provide the best borrowing/lending UX on smart phones.
Moola is innovating with Katoni Pay to provide USSD phones (i.e. feature phones) with access to credit.

As of right now you’ve raised over 1.2 million dollars by forking code & printed millions of $'s in your own token. All done off the backs of Aave developers who could’ve done the same thing in the current environment.

Moola is standing on the backs of giants and our success was made possible by the hard work of Aave developers and the Aave community. Moola created a valuable token by becoming a deeply integrated defi primitive on Celo. This proposal, if approved, would allow us to start to pay back to AAVE owners and Aave developers.

MOO is >90% controlled by insiders and “governs” a minimal effort fork.

Moola is following a path of progressive decentralization. MOO is owned by over 2,400 unique addresses. More than 50% of MOO supply is owned by the community treasury. This proposal is not seeking an investment from AAVE owners. This proposal is requesting to pay AAVE owners a software licensing fee in exchange for coordinated cross-chain cooperation.

This was exactly what I was talking about in the original licensing thread. The BSL1.1 would be to protect users from low effort projects like these, investing and then being f’ed over with no chance of participation.

Carbon copy fork, dodgy allocation at token launch, no governance in place (controlled by Multisig), offers payment because there is no innovation to speak of, that could be bartered.

That’ll be a no from me.


After getting some information and reading the comments form @neptune and @RyanRam i won’t support this proposal.

1 Like

Thank you for your replies, @neptune and @EzR3aL.

The BSL1.1 would be to protect users from low effort projects like these,

I’m sorry but ‘Low effort’ is an unfair characterization because our team puts in considerable amounts of effort to provide a high quality UX, keep user funds secure, and serve the unique needs of the Celo ecosystem. Have you used on a mobile device?

… investing and then being f’ed over with no chance of participation.

Again, this proposal is not seeking an investment from AAVE owners. Also, would you please help me understand where you feel that anyone has been ‘f’ed over’?

Carbon copy fork, dodgy allocation at token launch, no governance in place (controlled by Multisig), offers payment because there is no innovation to speak of, that could be bartered.

Re carbon copy: The contracts are a fork with minimal changes because the v2 codebase is solid. Moola has innovated on top it within the Celo ecosystem by building one of the most accessible mobile borrowing/lending applications in all of defi as well as the first private cUSD & cEUR savings accounts.

Re token launch: Moola’s token allocation has more than 53% of MOO allocated to the community treasury. This is the pool from which MOO tokens are distributed to the community. They can be used for liquidity mining incentives, staking rewards, and/or airdrops. This is in addition to the more than 1m MOO airdropped to over 200k users, many of whom still can claim their MOO tokens.

Re governance: Moola is following a path of progressive decentralization similar to how Aave did. Currently, governance decisions are made by a 6-of-10 multisig because this enables us to move quickly at an early stage of growth and easily coordinate protocol changes. It is anticipated that ownership of the community treasury and governance decisions will be transferred MOO owners. The Celo ecosystem still doesn’t have all the same governance tooling as other ecosystems and these things take time to build.

Re offers payment: Moola is the most integrated defi protocol on Celo. We’ve been good stewards of the v2 codebase by applying it for the unique needs of the Celo ecosystem. We deployed Moola in the absence of Aave because we felt that borrowing/lending was an important primitive for our community and Celo has not been a high priority for the Aave community. We’re offering payment out of respect for AAVE owners who signaled that this is the future path for the Aave protocol.

This was exactly what I was talking about in the original licensing thread.

If I interpreted your posted correctly here, then you were against the BLS1.1 license and in favor of a free to use MIT license (my apologies if I am misinterpreting what you suggested). Please help me understand why you would be against giving a license to a project that is offering to pay a fee, when you previously suggested that the v3 code base should be open-source and free to use?

You really want to do this? Okay…

I have not, nor am I planning on ever using your protocol. I also don’t think any of the points you described would disqualify my statement of “low effort” from being valid. You carbon copied a protocol which already has an impeccable UX and slapped a mobile friendly UI on it - that is it.

And you did it twice. With V1 and V2.

I have no idea why you keep saying that. We get it. That is not the point. Only because you don’t want to f us over, doesn’t mean that we’re not sensible to what you’ve done prior.

Even if you’d turn on governance immediately (Why haven’t you from the start? It’s not like you’ve got to do a lot of building anyway, everything is ready made…), insiders as well as “Moola Inc.” control at least 85% of eligible votes. Right now, nobody can vote - because you control it via Multisig.

The proportions are enormously off here. Did you even have a public sale? I can’t find anything on that one.

Pff. Sure. 51,03% goes into the “Community” Treasury. That who controls? That’s right - you. Both now and for a very long time after you “transfer control” to the community. If the liquidity mining incentives are kept at 100.000 MOOLA a week, it’ll only take a few years until enough trickles down to dilute yours and the insiders voting share enough for the actual community to be eligible to participate in decision making. Don’t bullshit me with this. Everyone who’s able to perform basic math can debunk your “fair” allocation. Only because you slap the word “community” in front of it, doesn’t mean it’ll actually be true.

But wait, you were so incredibly generous with an airdrop of 1,872% of total supply. 200.000 eligible claimers you say? 2450 holders right now? Massive success…

I don’t remember a governance vote on deployment on Celo. If the AAVE protocol is so good and so important for the Celo ecosystem, the first thing that may have been helpful is to advertise for a deployment there, wouldn’t it have been? But the motivation wasn’t to get a lending protocol onto Celo, because it’s good, the motivation was grabbing cash with minimal effort.

See above.


Did you literally Alt + F the thread and the first post in which I mentioned Open Source you posted? You both misinterpreted that particular post (which was to motivate people to participate in the Snapshot vote, because I believe a high participation in governance is important for the AAVE protocol) and you failed to read the rest of the thread, which shows once again that you’re not really interested in AAVE or the governance process or the process of temperature checking if a licensing would be possible, you’re interested in having a quick and easy way of carbon copying AAVE a third time without actual innovation or effort.

1 Like

I think AAVE should be planning to deploying on Celo themselves If the community chooses not to support this proposal. Also, I do think that accusations of low effort fork are premature? Forking a solid protocol with minimal changes just seems like a rational thing to do, and I think there’s lots of room for different lending pools that want to experiment with different assets and ecosystems. I also think that token or governance issues generally lie outside the scope of things the community should care about when granting a business license.

Every ecosystem needs a solid protocol like AAVE. Unless we plan on bringing it to them, I think it’s pretty awful to users of other ecosystems to deny others the ability to bring it to their ecosystems themselves, and makes the business license look pretty bad.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I have read all the above reasons and will give my brief comment. I agree and disagree with the above allegations against the adoption of such an offer. OK, it may need to be regulated by certain items, but this is a limited time license.
So I don’t understand why it would be bad for us to support him. In short, the license is for a limited time and in complete control of the Aave protocol. If Moola succeeds, it is 100% security for us, precisely because of all the above as others meniont

1 Like

@Patrick thanks for your well-written proposal and for coming to the Aave governance forum with a “friendly fork” project.

I’d like to invite the community even when they disagree which is completely fine to keep the debate civil @RyanRam consider yourself warned, your opinion is as valid as any other, the way to express might need to evolve if you don’t want to get moderated ser.

On the core of this proposal, I guess it’s up to the community to decide if they want a native deployment of Aave on CELO (that’s one of the option described here) or a friendly fork, or both at the same time.

1 Like

Thanks for your reply.

Thanks for your reply, Mark and for linking to your [Portals] post.

You accurately highlight the core decision to be made here. “On Celo, should there be a native deployment, a friendly fork that pays fees to Aave, or both at the same time?”

A native deployment could be done without Moola involvement but as your post points out, there are LOTS of ecosystems to deploy Aave to (e.g. Rollups, EVM Alt-L1 networks, Special Case Strategic CeFi EVM L1, EVM L2 on top of non-EVM networks). The Aave community has to set priorities because of limited resources.

In a resource constrained environment, a friendly fork is a win-win because Moola’s focus is on the Celo ecosystem. AAVE owners earn revenue from Celo via Moola and the engineering resources that would have been spent focusing on Celo can be spent developing other ecosystems. Moola already has integrations with most of the other key dapps on Celo, so Aave would inherit our first-mover advantage.

Both at the same time seems to be the least good option because here we are duplicating the resource requirements.