Aave Governance Vote Blocks DAO Takeover of Brand Assets - Community Pushes Back

Aave's decentralized governance just drew a line in the sand. A recent proposal to transfer control of the Aave brand's intellectual property to its DAO treasury has been decisively voted down by token holders.

The Core Argument: Who Owns the Name?

The debate centered on whether a decentralized autonomous organization should legally own the trademarks and logos that represent it. Proponents argued it was a necessary step for true decentralization—putting the brand's keys directly in the community's hands. Critics saw it as a massive, unnecessary legal risk, opening the DAO to potential liability and complex enforcement battles it's ill-equipped to fight.

Governance in Action: A Clear Verdict

The vote wasn't even close. A significant majority of staked AAVE tokens were cast against the move, showcasing a community preference for pragmatic stability over purist ideology. The result keeps brand assets under the stewardship of a more traditional, legally-structured entity—for now.

It's a classic crypto dilemma: the tension between decentralized ideals and the messy reality of operating in a world ruled by legacy legal systems. Sometimes, the most decentralized thing a DAO can do is admit it shouldn't own everything—especially not the lawyers' bills. The community decided that sometimes, the best way to protect a revolutionary project is with a few old-school safeguards.

The Spark: “Stealth Privatization” Concerns

The governance rift intensified following a December 4 partnership with CoW Swap. On December 11, community delegates discovered that swap fees were being directed to a private wallet controlled by AAVE Labs rather than the DAO. This led to accusations of “stealth privatization” and prompted a “poison pill” counter-proposal suggesting the DAO absorb Aave Labs entirely.

Tensions reached a breaking point on December 22, when Aave Labs moved the brand ownership proposal to a Snapshot vote. The proposal’s listed author, Ernesto Boado of BGD Labs, publicly denounced the move, calling it a “disgraceful breach of trust” because the vote was triggered while community debate was still active.

Kulechov’s Conviction and “Healthy Debate”

Aave Founder Stani Kulechov, moved the proposal to a Snapshot vote on December 22. Critics said the decision came without broad community agreement and while discussions were still ongoing, raising concerns about process and participation.

The episode also renewed debate around influence in token-governed systems. Some community members pointed to Kulechov’s recent AAVE purchase as highlighting how large holders can draw scrutiny during contentious governance decisions.

The recent DAO vote has wrapped up, and it has raised important questions about the relationship between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders. This is a productive discussion that’s essential for the long-term health of Aave.

While it's been a bit hectic, debate and disagreement…

Kulechov said the vote sparked an important discussion about alignment between Aave Labs and AAVE token holders. He described the debate as a normal part of “decentralized governance” and acknowledged that Aave Labs has not clearly explained its economic relationship with the DAO in the past, saying this would improve going forward.

Addressing concerns around his recent $15 million AAVE purchase, Kulechov said the tokens were not used to vote on the proposal and were never intended to influence the outcome. Instead, he framed the buy-in as a personal signal of long-term alignment at a time when Aave generated a record $885 million in fees in 2025.

He added that the DAO earned about $140 million this year, which remains under the control of AAVE holders, and said Aave Labs will be clearer about how its products create value for the DAO. “This is my life’s work, and I am putting my own capital behind my conviction,” he said.

Deeper Structural Tensions

Supporters tended to think it would improve decentralization and resolve questions about who owns the Aave brand. Many community members felt the proposal raised more questions than answers, especially about long-term rewards and governance.

The failed vote exposed deeper tensions within Aave’s ecosystem. Some large token holders argued that the protocol still lacks a clear way for the AAVE token to capture value, a problem they say affects not just Aave but many major DeFi projects. 

Wintermute CEO Evgeny Gaevoy said his firm voted against the proposal while calling for more serious discussions about long-term alignment between the protocol, token holders, and related entities.

Others focused on structural issues. Lido advisor Hasu said the dispute highlights a broader problem with setups where governance tokens coexist with separate equity-based companies. 

According to him, these dual structures create conflicting incentives and make effective governance harder over time, adding that many investors view them as temporary and expect a clearer, unified structure in the future.

Hasu added, “As a long-time investor in Aave, I hope all parties can come to the table and design a solution that aligns everything either under a singular token or equity structure, similar to Uniswap’s UNIfication proposal.”

Overall, the episode has become a case study in DAOs’ challenges of managing power, identity, and value. While the proposal failed, it has intensified the debate over how Aave-and similar protocols-should structure governance going forward.

Also Read: Bitcoin UTXO Bloat Sparks Debate Over “The Cat” Proposal