As the elected BD service provider of this DAO, we are the main DAO arm and factually most growth come from our work and @TokenLogic exclusively for the past 3 years.
Hello, and thanks for sharing your perspective. I want to clarify a few points, as some of the statements could be a bit misleading.
First, I personally think that ACI has done a great amount of work on the growth side. That said, saying growth has come “exclusively” from ACI and TokenLogic (who have been doing incredible work growing GHO across multiple networks) over the past three years is not the full picture. As a DAO, growth is driven collectively, anyone can and does contribute. Even Aave Labs has also supported growth in meaningful ways. For example, the recent Metamask deal in collaboration with TokenLogic started from a whiteboarding session with the Metamask team last year. This was an example where Aave Labs put the DAO first, even though the integration conflicted directly with the Aave interface experience.
There are also large institutional players like Galaxy Digital (NASDAQ: GLXY) and BTCS (NASDAQ: BTCS) that have been major borrowers with contributions from Aave Labs. ACI has done strong work on Ink/Kraken, but these relationships also show the DAO-wide effort is needed where I had to be personally involved. This is not about me or Aave Labs, but simply to underline that growth is a DAO-driven effort, where everyone who contributes, from writing code to taking meetings, is adding value, and the success should not be credited to any one entity. For the DAO to consistently win deals and integrations, it is important that all service providers contribute to the common effort, since in most cases each brings unique expertise to the table that helps close opportunities.
Regarding the comments about code quality: it is not clear what that refers to and seems very offensive even. Aave Labs has developed and delivered codebases that are still the production basis of today, of course some improvements made over time. The reality is that upgrading existing codebases with tens of billions of dollars at stake introduces significant risk. This is a key factor for decision-makers when choosing which lending protocol to partner with, and it can put Aave at a disadvantage while competitors consolidate. Personally, I am not comfortable supporting such upgrades unless its absolutely mandatory (as we’ve done before), as the consequences can be unprecedented and devastating.
This is why it is important to focus efforts on the evolutionary path to V4, while maintaining V3 in a safe and stable mode until migration is complete. In fact, V4 is flexible enough to cater to both setups at the Hub or Spoke level if the DAO truly wants that optionality and users then can decide what to opt-in.
It is unfortunate that within the DAO there is sometimes a culture where contributors feel they must be overly vocal or protective of their work so others don’t take advantage. The reality is that this should be a collective effort, not a zero-sum competition. No one is saying V3 disappears the moment V4 launches. V3 will remain live until liquidity migrates. The key shift is moving V3 into maintenance mode, especially given the high stakes, and directing development energy into V4 so it can gain lindy and become the foundation for the next phase of growth that our growth-focused service providers can then spearhead.
It is time to unite across all fronts. Aave has always been strongest when the DAO moves forward together. V4 is the future, and aligning behind it ensures we keep Aave’s leadership position while still respecting the important role V3 plays in the transition.