Aave Founder Fires Back: Denies $15M Token Purchase Swayed Governance Vote
Aave's founder just slammed allegations that a massive token buy was a play for voting power. The claim? A cool $15 million spent to influence a critical protocol decision.
The Vote That Sparked the Fire
Governance proposals in DeFi aren't just suggestions—they're high-stakes battles for a protocol's future. This one was no different, putting a significant chunk of the treasury or a core feature on the line. The founder's rebuttal cuts straight to the point: the purchase was separate, strategic, and not a covert op to rig the outcome.
Money Talks, But Does It Vote?
In decentralized finance, token weight equals voting weight. It's a system designed for meritocracy but vulnerable to financial muscle. Critics see any large buy before a vote as a red flag—a potential bypass of community consensus. The founder's pushback highlights the tightrope teams walk between strategic treasury management and perceived manipulation.
The Transparency Tightrope
Every move in DeFi is scrutinized. For protocols like Aave, maintaining trust isn't optional—it's the core asset. This public denial isn't just about one vote; it's a defense of the governance model itself. The message is clear: large holders can participate, but they don't get to write the rules in private. After all, what's a decentralized vote if you can just buy the result? It's the kind of old-finance move that makes crypto purists shudder.
The clash exposes DeFi's growing pains. As protocols manage billions, the line between smart investing and undue influence gets blurry. This won't be the last debate where money meets governance—but it sets a fiery precedent for how founders defend their ground.
What did Kulechov say about the recent Aave DAO vote?
According to Kulechov, the recent DAO vote raised important questions about the relationship between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders, calling it a “productive discussion that’s essential for the long-term health of Aave.”
He acknowledged that the voting was hectic and that there was “debate and disagreement,” but he brushed them off as features of decentralized governance.
“I want to state clearly,” he wrote. “I am committed to making the economic alignment between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders more clear. We haven’t done a great job explaining this and will do so going forward.”
He went on to talk about how the DAO has earned $140M this year, more than the past three years combined. Kulechov also reminded that $AAVE token holders have control over the treasury, a fact that got lost amid the chaos.
“In the future, we’ll be more explicit about how products built by Aave Labs create value for the DAO and $AAVE token holders,” he wrote before going on to address his recent $15 million purchase of $AAVE.
“These tokens were not used to vote on the recent proposal and that was never my intention,” Kulechov claimed. “This is my life’s work, and I am putting my own capital behind my conviction.”
The statement implies that his purchase was just him supporting the Aave ecosystem as a whole. However, critics on X as well as community members of his ecosystem are unconvinced. The skepticism is mainly due to the timing to the purchase, which happened during a period when the DAO and Aave Labs were locked in a voting war.
On Wednesday, Robert Mullins, a decentralized finance (DeFi) strategist and liquidity specialist, argued that the purchase was made to increase Kulechov’s “voting power in anticipation to vote for a proposal directly against the token holders best interests.”
He called it a “clear example of tokens not being equipped to adequately disincentivize governance attacks.”
His sentiments were echoed by prominent crypto user Sisyphus, who claimed that Kulechov might have sold “millions of dollars” worth of Aave tokens between 2021 and 2025, questioning the economic rationale behind the move.
Why Aave DAO and Aave Labs disagree
The proposal that started what many are now calling a civil war within the Aave ecosystem surfaced mid-December and sought to transfer control of critical Aave brand assets, including the aave.com domain, social media handles, trademarks, GitHub repositories, and naming rights, from Aave Labs to Aave DAO and token holders.
It was authored by former Aave Labs CTO Ernesto Boado, who argued it WOULD better align incentives with token holders, who currently bear the economic risk, and prevent potential overreach by the Labs entity.
However, backlash followed after the proposal was escalated to a snapshot vote despite ongoing debate. Several stakeholders voiced their displeasure, and Boado, the proposal’s author, admitted the vote escalated without his consent, breaking community trust.
The vote, touted as a temperature check, ultimately ended in a win for Aave Labs, with 55% of participants voting no, while a mere 3.5% voted yes and 41% chose to abstain.
Whether or not this outcome reflects the true desire of the participants is debatable since, as Samuel McCulloch of USD.ai pointed out, voting power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of large holders.
Snapshot data from the Aave DAO reportedly shows that the top three voters alone control more than 58% of the entire vote, with the top voter holding 27.06% of the voting power, while the second-largest voter, aci.eth, controls 18.53%.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.
