Who can bring governance topics to a vote under Governance Framework v2?

Governance
1

I raised this question in the [ARFC] Governance Framework v2 thread on 9 August, while the Snapshot was still open: [ARFC] Governance Framework v2 - #4 by Millesimillia

It did not receive a response, and the vote has since closed with 392,100 AAVE in favour and none against. I am opening it here so it has a proper home. This is a request for clarification, not an objection to the framework.

In the framework, author restrictions appear in three places only: the business case for a New Asset Listing and for a New Network Deployment, both reserved to Aave Labs or TokenLogic, and the Direct-to-AIP path, limited to active Service Providers. The Standard Process does not appear to restrict ARFC authorship.

  1. Is it correct that any token holder may author an ARFC on topics outside asset listings and network deployments - tokenomics, buybacks, service provider selection criteria, service provider reviews?

  2. Opening a Snapshot requires a place on the Authors list or 80,000 AAVE of proposition power. What is the route for a holder below that threshold whose ARFC has community support? Is there a sponsoring mechanism, and who maintains the Authors list?

  3. With TEMP CHECK retired, what is the intended low-barrier entry point for community-initiated topics?

  4. Commitments have been made in governance discussions that token economics would remain firmly in view, and I take them in good faith. My question is structural rather than about intent: what keeps token economics transparent to holders over time, when every service provider also carries equity and revenue interests of its own? Concretely, is there a fixed reporting cadence on protocol revenue and its allocation that does not depend on which provider holds which mandate?

If the reading above is correct, I would ask that a short subsection on community-initiated proposals be added: who may author an ARFC, the route to Snapshot for authors below the threshold, and who maintains the Authors list. The framework states that it shall be maintained over time, so this seems a natural place for it.

Transparency and accountability on these points would make AAVE stronger, not weaker. Over the medium term I would like holders to be able to judge the token the way shareholders judge a company: on disclosed economics, a predictable reporting rhythm, and a clear line from protocol revenue to the token.

Disclosure: I am an AAVE holder and staker, without material proposition power. I am not compensated by any party and hold no position with any service provider.

Warm regards,
Millesimillia (Edited)

@TokenLogic

1 Like
Areta Delegate Platform
2

I strongly support this question. Aave governance should not only reward those who already have enough voting power or the right connections to move an idea forward.

Strong proposals can come from any holder, researcher, delegate, or community member. The forum should give serious attention to ideas based on their quality, evidence, and value for Aave, not only on who brings them.

We need a clear path for community proposals that receive genuine support but come from authors below the Snapshot threshold. A transparent sponsor process, clear criteria for the Authors list, and public timelines for review would make participation more fair.

At the same time, proposals should be judged on impact, risk, and long term benefit. Sometimes well presented proposals move ahead despite limited value, while strong ideas are left behind because the author lacks access or visibility.

Open participation with clear accountability will make Aave governance stronger and help ensure that the best ideas get a real chance to be discussed and voted on. @Millesimillia

1 Like