Thank you, @EzR3aL. I completely take your point on Treasury Neutrality. I agree that keeping the Treasury out of the ‘voting wars’ is the healthiest path for Aave’s long-term technical integrity but we are not in a healthy environment right now.
However, this leaves the DAO in a Sovereignty Paradox: we are maintaining an ‘enforced neutrality’ with our resources while Aave Labs is free to use its massive, non-neutral voting power to dictate the future of our IP and branding.
If the Treasury must be neutral, then the Service Providers (SPs) must be transparent. We cannot have a neutral vault and a compromised governance floor at the same time.
To ensure a fair building environment—and to prevent more ‘Project E’ exits—I propose the following ‘Governance Integrity’ framework:
-
Mandatory Service Provider Disclosure: Any entity receiving DAO funding must disclose all addresses under their control or influence. This is not a request; it is a condition for payment. If you take the community’s money, you owe the community absolute transparency.
-
The ‘Skin in the Game’ Voting Standard: We must establish a permanent restriction on Conflict of Interest votes (IP transfer, branding, or legal disputes where Labs or an SP is a party):
• The Restriction: Any voting power derived from Genesis tokens, Team allocations, or DAO-granted incentives must be restricted in these specific votes to avoid a ‘rigged’ outcome.
• The Exception: These entities may only vote using tokens proven to be purchased on the open market with their own capital.
The Bottom Line: If we can’t use the Collector to balance the scales, we must ensure the scales aren’t being tipped by shadow-voters and conflicted proxies. If an SP is building for the DAO, their loyalty belongs to the $AAVE holders, not to the private interests of Aave Labs.
Let’s bring transparency to the voting floor. What does the community think about making SP payments conditional on this level of disclosure?