It has been weeks now since the ‘civil war’, and weeks can turn into months quickly. I hesitate to post this because it’s been asked for multiple times. At the risk of being annoying, I’m tapping the glass here. We’ve heard we can expect a proposal ‘soon’. Uncertainty is hurting us. Can we get a date (can be a range) for when we can expect an official response in regards to these deliverables? A date will quell concerns from token holders and rebuild some market confidence. Others have asked for a signal in direction as well, but I want to start with just a date:
The date I’m asking for is relevant to these deliverables:
Details on a structure that supports the long-term vision with sufficient guardrails for the DAO and Aave token holders. I.E.: binding safeguards around ownership of brand/IP/front end ensuring alignment with AAVE token holders
Details around commitment to sharing revenue generated outside the protocol with token holders.
I personally feel many hard, specific questions are continuing to go minimized, ignored, delayed, and unanswered. Personally, it feels like a brush off. This may be emotion based, but feeling brushed off only reinforces the DAO’s lack of power here (in my opinion). The DAO and AAVE token holders want nothing more than to be able to trust SPs. Aave Labs is critical to Aave’s success in the current structure and in any desired structure. We want to work together. Desire for binding structures is not a slight of Aave Labs. It is more an enforceable protection for token holders the rug won’t be pulled out from under them in regards Labs operating unilaterally in ways that hurt token holders (Marc has used the example of Aave Labs being bought by a big bank). Currently, we have no protection against that. It is not enough for Labs to say ‘trust us’ when there have been scenarios where many token holders feel there has been a pattern of that trust being broken. Even if we believe we are safe from such an outcome, there is no protection against it. We are not liquidity lemmings. We are part owners of Aave, and we should be treated as such.
Labs’ track record: Family? Failed. Lens? Sold. Every other product they’ve touched? Failed. Now Aave is all they have left, and somehow they still can’t manage basic communication.
We’re stuck with leadership that’s proven incompetent at everything except clinging to power.
I disagree. I don’t think they’re incompetent. I think they are VERY competent and are making a CONSCIOUS decision here to keep it vague and non-committal while they continue to strengthen their position while the DAO is operating on trust and are ending up in a less advantageous position with time. Every day counts. Many of us have a huge percentage of our net worth in AAVE because we believe we are part OWNERS of AAVE as a whole (that includes the brand, the IP, the website). Holding those items hostage when the original reasoning around that structure in the first place was legal/legislation based without proper commitment to token holders is criminal and honestly emotionally taxing for all of us. I’m talking pain and suffering. It prevents new investors from buying AAVE. It causes current AAVE holders to sell AAVE. It compounds negatively. This is destructive to AAVE at the protocol level and needs to be addressed. I believe any lacking there is evidence Labs is not respecting the investments AAVE token holders have made with their hard earned money and time. Stani has said he reads all these posts. Any lack of response and participation is conscious and voluntary. As someone whose family’s wellbeing depends on this, it hurts and is worrying. I have massive respect for what Stani and Labs have done in regards to Aave being a success, but the time has come to prove to the people we are in this together and relinquish power to build trust around what owning AAVE actually means.
This ends easily: we need to double down and activate the DAO’s treasury AAVE for voting power. That shifts the power dynamic immediately. The previous snapshot was a joke—completely controlled by Labs’ wallets.
Stani et al. have lost my respect and confidence entirely. Many large holders and SPs share this sentiment. Instead of waiting for solutions that won’t materialize, we need to prepare for the worst-case scenario. They’ll defend their equity—we must defend our token model.
@axieaur this pretty much nails it.. i would be happy to draft a proposal as well even though a certain proposal from @EzR3aL would carry most weight most probably.. maybe we can work on a joint proposal
It is deeply concerning that the most critical proposal in Aave’s history is currently being drafted in isolation by Aave Labs alone. Aave is a decentralized protocol and not a private company yet we are witnessing a process where major investors, key partners, former founders, and community leaders are completely excluded from the drafting room. A proposal created in a silo by a party with clear commercial interests cannot be expected to be fully neutral or aligned with the DAO’s long-term sovereignty.
This brings us to the uncomfortable questions regarding our readiness. Does the DAO have a concrete Plan B if the upcoming proposal falls short or insists on centralization again? If the terms are unacceptable what is our specific course of action to ensure business continuity without capitulation? Why is this process not being conducted transparently with all stakeholders from day one? My own experience teaches me that complex matters handled in the shadows almost always result in mediocrity rather than excellence.
Let’s be brutally honest here, this silence is strange. But what is even stranger is why this proposal isn’t being drafted jointly with the DAO, major partners, former founders, and community leaders. Why are we simply waiting for a proposal solely from Labs? Expecting a unilateral draft to be neutral and healthy defies the natural flow of life.