Key Highlights
- Aave Labs, led by Stani Kulechov, unilaterally advanced Ernesto Boado’s brand assets proposal to Snapshot vote on December 23, 2025.
- The action intensified DAO rifts, with Marc Zeller calling it “unprecedented interference” and criticizing the holiday voting window.
- Following disagreement, a whale dumped 230,350 AAVE for $38 million, fueling a sharp 10% drop in token price.
The tensions within the Aave decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) have escalated dramatically after Aave Labs unilaterally advanced a controversial governance proposal to an on-chain Snapshot vote.
Led by Aave Founder and CEO Stani Kulechov, the proposal seeks to transfer control of key Aave brand assets—including domains like aave.com, social media handles, trademarks, and naming rights—from Aave Labs to the DAO-controlled legal vehicle with anti-capture protections.
The proposal, originally authored by former Aave CTO and BGD Labs Co-Founder Ernesto Boado, was posted with the initial “[ARFC] $AAVE token alignment. Phase 1 – Ownership” on the Aave governance forum on December 16.
After the proposal was moved for Snapshot votes, allegedly without his approval or broader community consensus, Ernesto explicitly denounced the move in a public statement on X. He argued that submitting the proposal to Snapshot without community approval represents a “breach of governance trust.”
“This is not, in ethos, my proposal. Aave Labs has (for whatever reason) unilaterally submitted my proposal to vote in a rush, with my name on it, and without notifying me at all,” Ernesto emphasized, “If asked, I would not have approved it.” He noted that the governance is supposed to be for open discussion and “trying to rush a vote is disgraceful.”
Border disputes between DAO and Aave Labs
The controversy stems amid ongoing disputes over alignment between Aave Labs and the DAO. Recent accusations claim Aave Labs redirected frontend interface revenues—previously donated to the DAO—toward private monetization, estimated at over $10 million annually. This has fueled debates about whether brand assets, built largely through DAO-funded development and liquidity incentives, should remain under centralized control.
Now this vote has divided the community even further with critics, including prominent delegate Marc Zeller of the Aave Chan Initiative, labeled the latest push as “unprecedented interference” in DAO governance. Zeller’s view suggests that the voting window, which ends December 26, is for the holiday period and it is essentially timed to limit participation.
Quoting Zeller, another Aave team member Nandy.eth, urges Aave Labs to return to discussions and directly answer why transferring brand assets to DAO ownership, with a license back to the entity Avara, would hinder operations.
“When questions are asked, avoiding them conscientiously and trying to sneak a vote when the majority of delegates are with their families for Christmas is clearly a bad move,” Nandy stated.
The backlash has also impacted market sentiment, with a major whale selling approximately 230,350 AAVE tokens worth roughly $38 million, incurring a $13.75 million loss while swapping into stETH and WBTC. This dump contributed to a sharp 10% price decline in AAVE token price, which is currently trading at $159, as per CoinMarketCap data.
The core of the controversy
Currently, Aave’s trademarks, domains (e.g., aave.com), social handles, naming rights, and related intellectual property are controlled by Aave Labs, under the parent company Avara.
This newly published proposal claims that the DAO would own the assets outright. However, to allow Avara (and its entities like Aave Labs) to continue operating, developing, and maintaining official front-ends, apps, and services using the Aave brand, the DAO would grant a license back to Avara. This license would permit Avara to use the brand under defined terms, ensuring operational continuity while preventing unilateral control or potential misuse by the company.
Now critics argue that transferring ownership to the DAO (with a license back) is essential for transparency and to prevent “private monetization” of DAO-supported assets. While Avara representatives contend that such a transfer could hinder operations, raising questions about why a license back wouldn’t suffice for ongoing work.
As voting commences on Snapshot, the outcome could set precedents for DAO-developer relationships across DeFi. With low passing odds based on community discussions eroded trust, Aave currently faces a pivotal moment in its governance evolution.
Also read: HyperLiquid Denies Insider Trading as Ex-Staff Shorts HYPE
