We need an official statement asap to dismiss the FUD
Horizon should be a new Aave ecosystem product which benefit $AAVE period.
No new token, profits generated should mostly go to the DAO
You are harming Aave token a lot and I have yet to see a single person agreeing with this temp check
For the project sake, ditch this proposal asap
@AaveLabs - pass if there’s another token, please rework it.
I read every comment, valuable feedback from all - seems this prop created more FUD than won the hearts of our users.
I anticipated the Founder’s reply to alleviate concerns and drive visionary inspiration echoing loud with enthusiastic replies.. sadly only driving more skepticism..
You have a few months to deliver V4, nearly every month you’re been late with your updates to the community (no excuses given the high payout)..
Focus on completing V4 on time, as promised
Aave Community,
Stani’s reply is completely out of touch.
His proposal screws AAVE holders, reeks of self-dealing, and ignores prior commitments. Let’s tear it apart with some hard-hitting questions to make you think twice before rubber-stamping this nonsense.
Why are we even entertaining a new token for Horizon? Why fracture the ecosystem when AAVE could subsume Horizon’s? Where’s the data justifying this over a unified approach? A new token isn’t innovation; it’s a direct attack on AAVE’s valuation, leaving holders holding a devalued bag while Horizon’s token rides the RWA hype. Prove me wrong with actual numbers, not vague promises of “revenue.” There should be one token that embraces all, the ticker is $AAVE.-
Why isn’t the DAO building its own RWA task force? RWAs are set to hit a $10T market by 2030 (BCG, 2023). AAVE could dominate with a dedicated 10-person dev and BD team, not some half-baked 10% effort. Outsourcing to Horizon means ceding control of a multi-trillion-dollar future. What’s stopping us from doing this internally and banking over $50M/year by 2027 (based on DeFi yield trends)? Are we too scared to compete with BlackRock ourselves? This smells like a cop-out, and I want answers.
According to Stani (https://x.com/stanikulechov/status/1900919169274540287)
“First of all, Aave DAO should not fund any external business. Aave DAO should license software for any business that has high potential revenue where it cannot operate itself in that area.” do you see the irony here? He dictates what should be funded or not, he is not trying to empower the protocol with more products, he is just splitting business with other projects.
Let’s not forget: Aave Labs already committed to RWA work in their “Aave 2030” proposal ([TEMP CHECK] Aave 2030). The DAO funded that vision to the tune of millions, expecting products, track records, and KPIs. Where are they? We’re still waiting for results while they pitch Horizon as the next shiny thing. It’s an insult to ask us to approve this when they haven’t delivered on prior promises. Did our funds just vanish into Horizon’s budget? Show us the receipts—on-chain or otherwise—or admit you’re stringing us along.
And let’s talk about the elephant in the room: conflict of interests. Aave Labs, led by Stani and his crew, pushes Horizon while their ties to Avara (AAVE LABS) raises red flags. Where’s the transparency on their stake in Horizon? Why no disclosure on what they gain if Horizon’s token moons? This isn’t governance; it’s grift. TradFi would slap this with an SEC insider dealing flag faster than you can say “regulation.” If this is such a win for the DAO, why does it feel like AAVE holders are getting played while founders prep a juicy exit?
The “benefits” are a joke. Horizon’s “licensing fees” might net how much? 1M/year—chump change against a potential $500M market cap hit from dilution (rough calc). GHO doesn’t need Horizon to grow; it needs AAVE to lead RWA integration directly. This is a distraction, not progress.
I’m rejecting this proposal outright. It tanks AAVE’s value, hands our future to Horizon, and ignores past commitments. The DAO deserves better than recycled promises and zero accountability. If Aave Labs wants a shred of trust, kill the new token, fold Horizon into AAVE, and deliver the RWA results we already paid for. If not, prepare yourself to be unfunded, we’ve seen this happen before with Gauntlet. Happen once, could happen again, even with the team that built this project. Unlimited greediness should be our limit.
Better yet, the DAO should form a legal entity—a foundation, maybe—to shield us from these abuses and future liability. We can’t keep letting this slide; it’s time to draw a line. Drop your thoughts, but don’t let them steamroll us.
We haven’t been late on anything.
It is quite clear at this point that the DAO has already reached a consensus that there would be no wide interest in a token, even if it could accelerate the revenue growth of Aave by bootstrapping liquidity. Neither our team is interested in firmly committing to that especially as it’s the least exciting part of the temp check and I am sure there are other ways to figure out how to bootstrap liquidity and revenue streams from centralized businesses and products that are interested in using the Aave stack.
RWAs are extremely important revenue exposure for the Aave DAO and as previously mentioned it should not be overlooked and hence we are going to revise the proposal to accommodate feedback.
We must remember that the Aave DAO is a real DAO and any preliminary discussion and consensus reached must be respected and there is no interest from our team to push anything that the DAO does not feel right.
This is why smart money is on $AAVE.
What I understand is that the DAO would have been interested in a token if the terms of the launch were fair to the AAVE token holders.
For exemple:
50% of the token to the DAO
25% to users of the protocol
25% to stkAAVE holders
Aave labs would still get a big % of the total supply by having a large LP position in the protocol and as the largest stkAAVE holder.
Obviously, no token is now the consensus so this ship has sailed + we already have AAVE.
Aave labs got paid to develop a RWA strategy, Horizon is what came out of it… SO :
At launch all Horizon native fees should flow back to the DAO.
Then centralised entities like Aave labs should earn fees from their sales effort to bring liquidity acting as a front end/ institutional intermediary/ third party.
This would ensure the core of horizon is bringing value to the DAO, while centralised entities building on top of it can all compete (with their own fees schedule) on the RWA market.
This would makes sense as the RWA market is fragmented by regions and types of tokenisation.
We could then see Company A working on bringing asians RWA on Horizon, while company B (Aave Labs) would corner the european market etc…
The rising tide (should) lift all boats.
One important note to mention is that while Aave Labs has been building directly RWA products that are integrated into GHO without charging the DAO, such as BUIDL GSM (there is still uncertainty whether a centralized entity would be required to do the regulatory bit), the Aave DAO only approved for Aave Labs to build Aave V4. This is an important correction.
I am also firm believer that there needs to be dozens of centralized businessed doing RWAs. Now of course it will be harder to compete with Morpho and Ondo without incentives but I am sure there are other ways to figure this problem.
Sidenote: Aave V4 will be amazing and can unlock lot of these opportunities for RWAs given its modular architecture and more granular risk management and capital allocation features.
However, integrating permissioned RWAs presents challenges that go beyond smart contract development, requiring an offchain legal structure, regulatory coordination, and active supervision—functions not readily available within the Aave DAO infrastructure
I think there is a core assumption in this proposal that it would not be possible to accomodate permissioned RWA collateral under a DAO structure. It seems obvious for Horizon to be contracted as a service provider housing KYC/ALM requirements and due diligence on collateral; where the DAO can make final approvals of onboarding with Horizons recommendations and/or being the primary recipient of fee collection.
AAVE labs (or another RWA service provider) should be incentivized for the enormous legal structures to be formed to accommodate such a structure- but fragmenting these efforts outside of AAVE is unnecessary in my opinion.
I’m not seeing why a contracted legal entity that is a secondary recipient of profits generated from the operated RWA markets is not the default structure here. The ability to change service providers also preserves the ethical goals and alignment incentives of the AAVE DAO structure.
I think all we need is a “centralized legal entity” as a service (provider) to AAVE DAO 
We just need to figure out how
Didnt frax finance make a non profit public benefit corp for its rwa/centralized stuff ? Maybe we start by asking them for advice since they managed to make one as nonprofit and with no additional tokens .. instead of our own aave labs which seems to have been more preoccupied with making new businesses and shitcoins for themselves
As a longtime AAVE holder, I had my doubts about this too. Especially after seeing some of the reactions. Then I read the proposal and some of the messages from the OPs.
Aave is falling behind in RWAs. The same DAO participants who’ve done nothing to fix this are the ones kicking off now that a solution has been put in front of them on a silver platter. If Aave Labs were half as shady as some are making them out to be, they wouldn’t have bothered posting a proposal at all. They don’t need permission for what Horizon is trying to do.
Aave Labs put this forward in good faith because they know Aave is losing ground. They’ve included revenue sharing, a potential token allocation (if one exists), and a plan to build more demand for GHO—something it desperately needs. And let’s not ignore the fact that GHO could be a major revenue driver, especially if it requires almost no effort from the DAO.
This is a realistic way for Aave to compete. It’s getting ownership in a separate entity with barely any effort from the DAO. How is that not a dream scenario?
Without a dedicated, aligned business moving at the speed institutions require—meeting legal standards, securing deals, actually getting things done—Aave doesn’t stand a chance. And we’re past the point of guesswork. Aave has nothing to show for RWAs. Meanwhile, competitors are moving faster and eating up market share.
People keep pretending the DAO itself can drive institutional adoption. It can’t. If it could, this proposal wouldn’t exist.
Kevin O’Leary (of Shark Tank fame, IYKYK) would bite your hand off for a deal like this. It’s free money for a DAO that has either failed or refused to tackle the RWA issue.
And for the AAVE holders panicking… why? If you were bullish on Aave without RWA revenue, why would you turn bearish now that a practically free revenue stream is on the table? That’s not a serious take.
Without this model, Aave will keep watching RWAs take off while the DAO shoots down the lowest risk chance it has to compete. We should try to see how we can move this forward.
Thank you, Stani, for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your commitment to respecting the DAO’s consensus and your willingness to revise the proposal based on community feedback. However, I would like to request further clarification on a few critical points to ensure transparency and alignment with the community’s interests:
To ensure clarity and community understanding, it would be beneficial to have concrete statements addressing these questions. This will help align expectations and foster a collaborative environment where all stakeholders can work together effectively.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your detailed response.
So there have been really a lot comments made already on this post which makes it hard to follow if you just coming to this proposal.
So I would like to summarize it the best way I can to make it easier.
I hope this sums it up more or less, especially for new reader. If there is something really important missing, that i have forgot just tag me and I will add it.
I love the idea of onboarding institutional funds, but since Horizon has been developped by Aave Labs thanks to grants given by Aave, I don’t understand why it would be a separate project, and not a product inside Aave? Would need to check the contract between Aave and Aave Labs, but I wouldn’t be surprised that the IP belongs to Aave.
No need for a separate token, no need for <100% revenue sharing.
Clarification here that this is not correct. There has not been a grant to build Horizon. Aave Labs works as a service provider under a scope to build Aave V4, which IP 100% belongs under the Aave DAO.
Thank you @EzR3aL for summarising the thread. These are valid findings.
Ok, thanks a lot for the clarification Stani.
So my understanding is that the development of Horizon doesn’t fall under the service provision agreement with Aave DAO, and that it was developped by a separate team, am I correct?
Now that the general consensus is that another token for horizen is not a good idea, what’s going to happen to bringing RWA to Aave? It was mentioned that Aave is behind competition so it’s better to move fast on this.
The community feedback on Horizon was clear: strong opposition to a new token, reduced revenue share, and genuine interest in RWA opportunities. RWAs represent a massive growth vector with $16T potential but face a fundamental challenge: Aave DAO cannot legally custody real-world assets, making direct RWA lending impossible through our decentralized structure. Below, we briefly analyze key considerations and examples of successful integrations.
We remain committed to collaborating with @AaveLabs on a structure that integrates RWAs.
Tokenized real‐world assets (RWAs) represent an innovative domain in which tangible or traditional financial assets assume a novel digital form on the blockchain. When such tokens serve as collateral for lending and borrowing, they engage a wide array of legal and regulatory implications. Although restricting a protocol’s participation to institutional clientele may mitigate certain legal uncertainties, the act of lending or borrowing tokenized real‐world assets continues to demand adherence to intertwined legal, operational, and security prerequisites.
The discussion below highlights the principal legal and regulatory considerations pertinent to the proposed protocol design. In addition, it examines whether an entityless DAO structure can effectively address the obligations imposed by regulators.
Jurisdictions differ in their treatment of tokenized real‐world assets, with many of these tokens likely to be classified as securities. If so, they must comply with applicable securities laws, such as those administered by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or under MiFID II in Europe, which mandate disclosure, registration, or reliance on certain exemptions like those available through Regulation D. The trading venue for digital securities also may be subject to licensing or authorization requirements, contingent on the regions in which it operates. Although one might consider establishing an entity in a jurisdiction lacking a well-defined legal framework as a form of regulatory arbitrage, that approach could severely limit client access in countries with more robust regulatory systems.
Even if a platform can be deemed technically decentralized, complete decentralization does not align with regulatory expectations for licensing. Regulators typically require a legal entity to function as the platform’s operator so that a centralized counterparty can be granted a license and subsequently held responsible for ensuring compliance.
Given the imperative of preventing unlawful activities and safeguarding investors, the platform operator must implement thorough Know-Your-Customer and Anti-Money Laundering procedures. In nearly every jurisdiction, such measures are mandated for regulated entities and become even more essential when institutional participants, who often transact significant amounts, are involved. These compliance responsibilities usually rest with a licensed operator with established internal teams to oversee customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring. Outsourcing these functions tends to be narrowly limited by regulation.
Assessing whether a DAO structure could fulfill these requirements leads to the conclusion that compliance is theoretically possible if the DAO engages a specialized AML service provider like other DAO service arrangements. However, that provider would likely be subject to confidentiality constraints that limit public disclosure of its findings or decision-making processes.
Institutions handling real‐world assets demand secure custody solutions, either from regulated digital asset custodians or traditional institutions holding the underlying assets off-chain. The trading facility might select an external custodian, rely on the custodian designated by the asset issuer, or manage custody internally, depending on its operational framework. Regardless of the chosen model, the entity providing custody services must hold the requisite license. A fully decentralized DAO without a legal wrapper faces significant obstacles here, as regulators typically recognize only formal legal persons for licensing purposes. The DAO can retain a licensed custodian, but forming and enforcing the requisite contractual relationship could become complicated without legal personhood.
Several protocols already facilitate the integration of real‐world assets into crypto lending and borrowing arrangements, each adopting distinct legal strategies to mitigate risk.
In light of the legal and regulatory considerations surrounding tokenized real‐world assets, it becomes clear that incorporating RWAs into lending and borrowing protocols demands a carefully crafted compliance strategy. Securities classification often triggers disclosure and registration obligations, while AML/KYC processes remain critical to curbing illicit activity and sustaining trust among institutional players. Moreover, the requirement for licensed custody arrangements—and the obligation for a recognized legal entity to hold the relevant licenses—reinforces the challenges of adopting a DAO‐only framework without a formal corporate wrapper. These factors indicate that protocols aiming to embed RWAs must adapt their operational structures, often forming partnerships or establishing specialized entities, to meet investor protection imperatives and evolving regulatory expectations across multiple jurisdictions.
For me the excitement about AAVE comes from exactly this institutional adoption. When I see @stani at talks eg the recent one with Sergey Nazarov at DAS, I think about banks implementing the usage of AAVE into their offerings, so customers can put money into AAVE straight from their bank account (facilitated by Chainlink CCIP).
This vision was what made me increase my AAVE holdings by a lot over the last 6 months. A spin-off by AAVE Labs with a new token would be very disappointing for me and I‘m happy that the majority of the DAO seems to agree. I hope everyone involved in the Horizon project can find ways that fully align it with AAVE while of course reaping benefits for their work.
It’s truly absurd. RWA is the most significant incremental market in the entire DeFi sector, with a market value of tens of trillions of dollars. Horizon project only gave 10% of the proceeds to AAVE DAO and even demanded the creation of a new token. In my opinion, if the share of AAVE DAO is lower than 80%, there’s no need to engage Aave Labs at all. We can find any team to complete the RWA project ourselves. The fact that such an idea could be proposed shows that Aave Labs no longer considers the vast majority of AAVE holders. We need to be cautious about the projects.