The decentralized world of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) has been shaken up once again as Aave, a leading DeFi platform, faces controversy over governance and transparency. The heart of the dispute lies in a proposal involving the control of Aave’s brand assets. But what’s really happening, and how could it affect the trust within the DAO ecosystem?
A Governance Proposal Ignites Controversy
On December 22, 2025, a proposal aiming to transfer ownership of brand assets—including domains, GitHub repositories, and social media accounts—to the Aave DAO was submitted for a vote. However, the controversy began when it was revealed that this proposal was pushed to a vote without the consent of its original author, Ernesto Boado, the co-founder of BGD Labs.
Boado disavowed the proposal publicly, stating that it was submitted using his name without his approval. On the governance forum, he posted, “This is not, in ethos, my proposal. Aave Labs unilaterally submitted my proposal to vote in a rush, with my name on it, and without notifying me at all. If asked, I would not have approved it.” His statement sparked significant community concerns and brought trust issues between contributors and the development team into the spotlight.
Brand Control and DAO Trust
The core of the proposal seeks to give legal control of brand assets to the Aave DAO, introducing legal protections and mechanisms to prevent asset capture. However, the hasty submission of the proposal by Aave Labs, without completing community discussions, raised questions about its alignment with decentralized governance principles.
One of the contentious points centers around Aave Labs’ decision to integrate CowSwap over Paraswap for revenue purposes, with critics arguing that such moves could diminish returns for the DAO. Similar concerns were raised following the Horizon incentives program, which reportedly yielded low results despite significant investment. DAO members also accused Aave Labs’ parent company, Avara, of controlling essential communication channels, reducing community influence on key decisions.
The Wider Implications: Governance and Transparency
Stani Kulechov, Aave’s founder, defended the decision to submit the proposal for a vote, stating that discussions had already taken place over the past five days. In his defense, he argued that the Snapshot submission adhered to governance framework rules. However, contributors questioned his objectivity, given his dual role as a leader of Aave Labs and a key decision-maker within the DAO.
Critics further compared the situation to governance challenges at Uniswap, where conflicts of interest arose between centralized teams and decentralized protocol contributors. Observers suggest that the DAO’s decentralization ethos could be undermined if similar trust and control issues persist across the Web3 landscape.
Final Thoughts
This dispute highlights the delicate balance DAOs must maintain between operational efficiency and decentralized ownership. For Aave and similar projects, community trust is critical, and decisions perceived as unilateral could set back the broader push for decentralization in finance.
Looking to stay updated on crypto-related discussions and solutions? Ledger Nano X is an excellent hardware wallet to safeguard your digital assets against uncertainties and ensure a higher level of control. Check it out today!
