Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
More
Aave DAO votes against the brand asset decentralization plan—economic interests behind governance disagreements
【Crypto World】In the most recent vote of Aave DAO, 55% of participants rejected a proposal—originally intended to transfer key brand assets of Aave Labs to a decentralized management organization.
The controversy’s focus is quite straightforward: Aave Labs has long retained revenue rights for the front-end website, which has dissatisfied many token holders. They believe this revenue should return to the DAO treasury rather than being solely retained by the company.
Project founder Stani Kulechov then spoke out, honestly acknowledging that the economic relationship between the company and token holders indeed needs to be clarified, with a more transparent distribution mechanism. This essentially admits to the current ambiguity. However, a turning point came—Marc Zeller, a member with significant influence in the DAO, revealed that after a休息期, another round of voting is likely to be initiated.
This reflects a common issue in the DeFi ecosystem: project teams and the community find it difficult to reach consensus on value distribution. The rejection is just a pause; the future depends on whether all parties can find a new balance.
Even Stani had to come out and admit fault, which shows he's feeling pretty guilty. I've heard this kind of "streamlining relationships" explanation many times.
The real disagreement is still about money. Don't pretend to have governance ideals; it's just about who gets the front-end profits.
Another DAO democracy show. If you're unhappy with the voting results, just hold another round.
Thinking back to those big projects from a while ago, it was the same story: nominally decentralized, but in reality, the team still calls the shots.
If 55% oppose it and it still passes, what's the point of this DAO? It's just team dictatorship with a voting facade.
How can Marc's "voting power" change votes? Isn't that just blatant centralization?
The problem isn't with the proposal itself but with the flaws in the initial design. Why isn't the front-end revenue owned by the DAO?
If Aave doesn't handle this well, the confidence of token holders will really take a hit.
---
Stani has already apologized, what else is there to do? If things need to be sorted out, don’t hide behind cover-ups.
---
55% oppose, so does that 45% really want Labs to keep cutting leeks?
---
The issue of front-end revenue rights should have been clarified long ago. It’s a bit awkward to bring it up now.
---
Everyone understands the reasoning, it all comes down to who has the bigger fist.
---
A classic DAO governance failure scene, a mess everywhere.
---
Is it really that hard to distribute fairly? Do we really need voting to get it done?
---
Honestly, it’s still a trust issue. Labs’ behavior is just too ugly.
---
What is Stani pretending? It should have been clear a long time ago. Now you're talking about streamlining?
---
55% opposed... It seems some people have been convinced. This matter is not over.
---
Holding brand assets, taking front-end revenue, and DAO just wants a share? Laughable.
---
Why is it always this routine? Do it first, then clarify. If you can't clarify, just vote to stall.
---
Waiting to see the next step. Marc and the others definitely have a backup plan.
---
This is why I have reservations about decentralized governance. Wealthy voters always win.
---
Aave Labs is making a huge profit, and token holders are once again being cut like leeks.
Money issues are always the most complicated, and Stani's recent backing down is quite a facepalm.
Why does it have to be the DAO treasury to be considered "fair"? Honestly, the reasons sound pretty hollow.
A mess of profit sharing that requires voting and discussion—better to just see who has the bigger fist.
Stani's words are essentially saying, "We all know what's going on, but the rules haven't been set yet"... Alright then.