Event Overview

Recently, Wintermute founder and CEO Evgeny Gaevoy publicly expressed opposition to an ARFC governance proposal being discussed by the Aave community, pushing what was originally an internal technical discussion into a broader market perspective. From the disclosed information, the focus of the controversy is not a single technical parameter or product iteration, but rather the control over Aave's brand assets, front-end operational rights, and the corresponding governance structure arrangements, and whether they are sufficient to protect the long-term value of the protocol and the rights of token holders. In the current weak environment where Bitcoin and Ethereum continue to decline and ETF products are experiencing net outflows, this governance dispute has been amplified as a repricing signal for AAVE governance expectations and protocol valuation frameworks, prompting market participants to reassess: to what extent will the uncertainty of governance structures affect the risk premium of DeFi blue chips during a liquidity contraction phase?

Proposal Controversy Points

The core criticism from Wintermute regarding this ARFC proposal centers on the "blank areas" in governance design. According to public statements, Gaevoy believes the proposal does not provide a coherent governance mechanism design, particularly lacking a clear path for decision-making and accountability regarding brand and front-end control rights: key aspects such as the ownership of front-end governance rights, update processes, and community veto mechanisms are all deemed vague. Meanwhile, the operational arrangements involving profit-making entities and the role boundaries of Aave DAO are also considered unclear, potentially leading to a mismatch of profits, responsibilities, and control between on-chain governance entities and off-chain commercial entities, resulting in hidden risks that token holders find difficult to assess. It should be noted that the public currently does not have access to the complete details of all terms of the ARFC, with some content still remaining at the level of "allegedly" and "to be confirmed," and the insufficient disclosure of information further amplifies the controversy, meaning that any judgment on the proposal's impact still carries uncertainty for readers.

Token Value Dilemma

From Wintermute's perspective, a deeper issue is that the value capture logic of the AAVE token itself is not clear enough. Gaevoy explicitly points out that even though governance rights are nominally held by token holders, there is a lack of quantifiable mechanisms to assess the relationship between fee allocation, protocol cash flow distribution, and governance rights versus economic rights. From a fee perspective, the market has been concerned about the extent to which protocol revenue can flow back to AAVE holders, or whether it is primarily absorbed by front-end and profit-making entities; from a cash flow perspective, the absence of clear paths like "dividends" or systematic buybacks and burns makes the token resemble a "governance certificate" rather than an asset with predictable returns; from a governance perspective, whether voting rights can substantively influence the future fee distribution generated by brand assets and the front end is also questioned for lacking executable arrangements. The control over key assets such as brands and domain names, once severed from on-chain governance, will directly affect the future fee expectation allocation path, thereby impacting AAVE's valuation model in the eyes of institutions and long-term funds, which is precisely why Wintermute places the discussion of brand assets at the core of value capture.

Governance Politicization

As discussions escalated, accusations within the Aave community regarding terms like "malicious takeover" began to emerge, quickly politicizing what should have been a governance dispute focused on mechanisms and terms. Different factions not only questioned each other's technical solutions or governance logic but also began to label opposing motivations as "controlling the protocol" and "seeking personal gain," significantly shifting the community discussion atmosphere towards emotional opposition. In response, Gaevoy emphasized in public comments that political accusations should cease, and the discussion should be reset to the fundamental question of "how to improve the AAVE token value capture mechanism and governance structure," stating that the current debate has deviated from the original intention of protecting the long-term interests of the protocol. The spread of political labels, on one hand, undermines the technical depth and precision of professional governance discussions, while on the other hand, significantly raises the coordination costs for the community to reach a consensus: representatives find it harder to compromise on mechanism design, and ordinary holders struggle to extract verifiable factual basis from the noise.

Investor and DAO Rift

Wintermute's sensitivity in this controversy also stems from its dual identity: as both an early investor in AAVE and a key institution involved in governance for a long time, it has amplified its voice regarding the direction of protocol development and the disposal of governance assets. Early capital often exchanges high risk for stronger expectations regarding the protocol's brand, roadmap, and potential profit distribution, while currently more active governance participants may place greater emphasis on short-term incentives, on-chain governance rights, and tool usage experience, leading to structural differences in return cycles, risk preferences, and understandings of the boundaries of "decentralization." When discussions touch on the restructuring of brand and governance assets—such as whether brand control should be fully delegated to token holders, who should operate the front end, and how profit-making entities should be embedded in the DAO—these differences can easily be amplified into a narrative of "vested interests vs. new participants." Therefore, Wintermute's public opposition is not just a vote choice but also reflects the deep rift that DeFi protocols inevitably face in their mature stages: the redistribution of rights, responsibilities, and benefits among capital, contributors, and token holders.

Market Environment Linkage

The current macro and crypto market environment has also amplified the impact of this governance storm. Recently, Bitcoin and Ethereum prices have continued to decline, and mainstream spot and futures ETFs have seen net outflows, reflecting an overall decrease in risk appetite and tightening liquidity. In this context, investors' tolerance for governance uncertainty has significantly decreased: any disputes regarding brand asset control and governance structure will be quickly factored into the protocol's risk premium, creating downward pressure on the valuation of DeFi protocols like AAVE. For institutions and large DAOs, the current environment resembles a market of existing stock games, with limited new capital; any changes in governance expectations will directly affect whether they continue to invest time and capital in proposal discussions and protocol development. If brand and profit allocation are perceived as opaque or easily swayed by a few entities, some institutions may lean towards reducing their holdings of related assets or lowering their governance participation, opting instead to support alternative protocols with clearer governance structures and more transparent cash flow arrangements.

Follow-up Observation Points

The game surrounding this ARFC has not yet settled, and several governance nodes worth continuous tracking include: first, whether the proposal will undergo substantial revisions after intense debate, including the refinement of terms regarding governance processes, brand control, and front-end operational rights; second, what mechanism will be adopted for the formal voting process, and whether there will be improvements in voting thresholds, representative authorization, and execution supervision. From a longer-term perspective, assessing the quality of AAVE governance can focus on several key indicators: whether the AAVE token value capture path is clearly written into the governance framework, whether the distribution of protocol fees and cash flows has transparent and auditable rules, and whether the boundaries of rights and responsibilities between the DAO and profit-making entities are clearly defined. This controversy provides a high-exposure sample for DeFi governance practices, and other protocols, when designing brand asset ownership, front-end control rights, and token economic models, will inevitably reference the impacts currently faced by Aave to avoid a similar crisis of trust and expectations in the next round of market fluctuations.

Join our community to discuss and become 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。