Event Overview

Recently, a governance proposal regarding the Aave brand assets and related front-end control has sparked intense debate within the community. The focus is on whether to transfer, restructure, or consolidate these "brand assets," which are strongly tied to the protocol, from the existing framework, who will be responsible for their management, and how they will be subject to DAO oversight in the future. According to public information, the proposal has been framed as an upgrade to the governance structure, but shortly after its submission, it faced public opposition from Wintermute founder Evgeny Gaevoy. Evgeny's core concerns center on two points: first, the proposal does not clearly outline the governance mechanism design for the front-end and brand entity, lacking specific explanations of the new entity's rights, responsibilities, checks and balances, and accountability pathways; second, there are worries that in a situation of concentrated power but unclear rules, the trust foundation between the DAO and the core team will be weakened. Meanwhile, community discussions quickly showed signs of factionalization, with one side accusing Labs of "maliciously taking over" the DAO, while the other side questioned the opposition's attempts to manipulate the narrative, intertwining unclear governance mechanisms with political accusations at the center of this round of controversy.

Proposal Controversy

Reports indicate that this ARFC-level proposal directly targets the most sensitive part of the Aave ecosystem—the user-facing front-end and control over intangible assets such as brands and domain names. The direction leans towards reconstructing a centralized entity to manage these assets, in order to unify brand image and compliance strategies, while still nominally being "supervised" by the DAO. However, Evgeny has repeatedly emphasized on social media and community channels that the proposal text does not clearly depict the equity structure of the new governance entity, the mechanism for forming the board or council, and lacks detailed clauses on decision-making processes, information disclosure, and the boundaries of rights and responsibilities with Aave DAO, merely brushing over these issues with "to be determined later" (according to PANews/The Block). This path of transferring first and designing later makes it difficult for outsiders to assess its true impact on the existing decentralized structure. Complicating matters, according to Grok's summary of community discussions, both supporters and opponents accuse each other of attempting "malicious takeovers": the DAO camp fears that the brand will be unilaterally locked by Labs in an off-chain entity, losing tools for rebalancing; while Labs supporters believe that some governance participants are amplifying risks through public opinion to maintain their existing voice. This narrative of mutual labeling easily obscures the governance design issues that should be the focus, leading to further misinterpretation of the proposal's motives.

Governance and Value

This controversy surrounding Aave once again exposes an old problem: how to delineate the boundaries of power and responsibility between decentralized protocols and real-world brands/front-end entities. The smart contracts at the protocol layer can be entirely driven by DAO decisions, but what users actually interact with are often front-end websites and operating companies that carry trademarks, domain names, and compliance obligations, which must often be embedded in some form of off-chain legal structure. The current proposal attempts to shift the governance rights of the brand and front-end from a more decentralized and ambiguous state to a more centralized entity with legal personhood. However, if it does not simultaneously provide a clear governance structure and feedback loop, it will raise market doubts about whether the value capture mechanism is shifting from open token holders to a closed equity structure. The less transparent the governance structure, the larger the gray areas regarding future income distribution, risk-bearing, and intellectual property ownership, which not only affects the long-term sustainability of the protocol but may also undermine the legitimacy of tokens as "tools for governance and value claims." Conversely, if the control over the brand and front-end is overly decentralized, the DAO will bear both public opinion and regulatory risks at critical moments while lacking unified decision-making tools, which will similarly erode user trust, turning value capture into an unaccountable "commons."

Political Game

From the trajectory of this discussion, what should have been a debate focused on technical issues such as governance mechanisms, corporate structure, and risk isolation quickly became dominated by political language: factional voting intentions, speculation about the motives of key speakers, and the repeated appearance of labels like "takeover" and "usurpation" on social media have drowned out rational analysis in emotional outbursts. For early key participants like Wintermute, who have been deeply involved in Aave governance since 2022, they are both contributors of liquidity and reputation, and have vested interests in token holdings and protocol direction; while the core team and its associated Labs control the technical roadmap, brand assets, and execution resources; ordinary community members express their intentions through proposals and votes but are often at a disadvantage in agenda setting and information access. This power imbalance and tension of interests among the three (or even multiple) parties have been magnified in a significant proposal concerning brand and front-end control. When discussions become politicized, any suggestions for structural optimization are easily interpreted as "taking sides," which can hinder the protocol's decision-making efficiency in technical iteration, risk management, and even external collaboration. Potential partners may also worry about whether the project is in a state of long-term internal conflict, thereby reducing their willingness to invest resources.

Market Linkage

It is essential to observe this within a larger market context, as the overall risk appetite in the current crypto market is already weak. According to PANews statistics, the AI-themed token sector fell by about 75% throughout 2025, with many high-beta narrative assets experiencing dual pressures of valuation and liquidity, indicating a significant decline in the market's tolerance for complex narratives and long-term realization paths. In this environment, the market prefers "hard assets" with clear cash flows, simple governance, and transparent information, showing an amplified reaction to any new uncertainties. The Bitcoin market sentiment indicator CED reported by PANews is approximately -13.05, which also reflects that mainstream funds are in a defensive emotional range: not in extreme panic, but clearly distancing from the greed zone. In such an overall risk-averse atmosphere, protocols like Aave, viewed as blue-chip DeFi infrastructure, can easily be interpreted by the market as experiencing an increase in institutional discount if governance issues arise with unclear direction and fragmented narratives. Even without discussing specific token prices, governance uncertainty itself can raise risk premiums, suppressing activity and new capital inflows, forcing blue-chip protocols that originally relied on stable expectations to support valuations to endure structural discounts.

Risk Outlook

The current governance dispute at Aave directly exposes several weak links at the institutional level: first, proposals involving brand and front-end, which are "key externality assets," lack prior explanations of the governance structure, accountability mechanisms, and the relationship with the DAO, as well as mandatory disclosure standards; second, the DAO has yet to establish a systematic process for professional due diligence, independent assessment, and counterbalancing before on-chain voting, making it easy for significant changes to be rushed through under public pressure and information asymmetry. Future DeFi governance will likely need to evolve along three dimensions: how brand entities can exist in the form of companies or foundations and accept multi-party custody; how front-end control can find a "regulatable but not privatizable" middle ground between compliance and decentralization; and how the DAO can upgrade from a "voter assembly" to an institutional participant with tools, data, and procedural justice. For market participants, the key is to learn to distinguish between short-term "governance noise" and "structural defects" that truly reflect changes in power structures and value capture paths: the former may simply be individual conflicts or heightened rhetoric, while the latter will have long-term impacts on the protocol's valuation foundation. Given the current lack of key information such as voting ratios and complete responses from core members, and the need for verification regarding the pace of voting advancement and specific expressions, any attempts to make conclusive judgments of "illegality" or "process violations" lack sufficient basis and should be reassessed after more facts are made public.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。