Aave’s $140M‑revenue year is overshadowed by a failed brand‑control vote, a $10M AAVE buy, and a brutal governance rift hammering the token.
Summary
- DAO revenue hit $140M this year, exceeding the prior three years combined, with AAVE holders controlling the funds.
- A brand‑asset transfer proposal failed with 55% against and 41% abstaining, deepening the rift between Aave Labs and the DAO.
- AAVE price has dropped about 20% amid criticism of Kulechov’s $10M+ token buy and concerns over governance “attacks” and fee routing.
Aave’s holiday governance drama has flipped into open confrontation, with founder Stani Kulechov now stressing that this year’s DAO revenue hit roughly $140 million — more than the previous three years combined — and insisting his multimillion-dollar AAVE (AAVE) buy was never used to sway the decisive brand-control vote that just failed.
AAVE Dao versus AAVE Labs continues
On Christmas week, while most desks in Paris and London ran skeleton crews and DeFi volumes thinned out, Aave’s governance channels turned into a full‑blown street fight over who actually controls the protocol’s name, domains and soft IP. The clash culminated in the rejection of an Aave Request for Comment (ARFC) to transfer core brand assets from Aave Labs to the DAO, with more than 55% of votes against and over 41% of participants simply refusing to take a side.
In a fresh statement on X, Aave founder and CEO Stani Kulechov tried to reset the narrative. “I am committed to clarifying the economic interests between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders,” he wrote, conceding that “our explanations in this regard have not been sufficient, and we will strive to improve in the future.” He underscored what he called the missing context in the uproar: “The DAO has generated $140 million in revenue this year, surpassing the total revenue of the past three years, and $AAVE token holders have control over these funds.”
That reminder landed in a market that has been busy pricing in governance risk. Over the past week, AAVE (AAVE) has dumped around 20%, sliding from the high $180s toward the mid‑$140s, with intraday ranges showing sharp $5–$7 wicks as liquidity thins out above $155 and aggressive sellers keep leaning on any bounce. One whale already moved more than 230,000 AAVE — roughly $37 million at the time — in a single sell program, pushing price down near $162 and leaving a very obvious supply overhang on the daily chart that traders are now treating as de facto resistance.
At the heart of the dispute sits Kulechov’s recent purchase of roughly $10–15 million worth of AAVE tokens, executed into an order book that was already jittery and heavily skewed to perpetuals rather than spot. Critics called it a “governance attack,” arguing the timing effectively allowed the founder to bulk up his voting power right before a contentious series of votes on brand control and revenue routing went to Snapshot. Kulechov pushed back hard on that framing, stating bluntly that “these tokens were not used to vote on the recent proposal; that was never my intention,” and adding, “this is my lifelong career, and I support my beliefs with my own funds.”
The ARFC on brand asset transfer, which would have moved Aave’s domains, trademarks and social channels into a DAO‑controlled legal wrapper, became a lightning rod. Governance stewards and large delegates blasted the holiday timing as a “hostile” move, noting the vote was pushed through a low‑participation window when many institutional token holders and protocol‑aligned market makers were effectively offline. The final tally — 994,800 votes against, just 63,000 in favor and a massive abstain bloc — exposed a deep split between Aave Labs and the DAO over how fast, and how far, the protocol should push decentralization of off‑chain assets.
Under the surface, this is also about cash flows and interface economics, not just logos and Twitter handles. Community members have accused recent frontend changes of diverting swap‑related revenue away from the DAO, feeding a narrative that core development is quietly tightening its grip just as real‑world asset volumes and fee income start to scale. Against that backdrop, Kulechov’s emphasis on the DAO’s $140 million in annual revenue feels less like abstract accounting and more like a reminder that the on‑chain treasury — not the brand wrapper — is where the actual power sits right now.
Markets are trading it with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Funding has flipped negative on several AAVE perp pairs after Monday’s low was swept and failed to hold, with mid‑cap DeFi names catching a bid while AAVE itself stays pinned below prior local support, a classic “problem child” setup that desks in Paris and Zug have seen a hundred times in governance blow‑ups. Ignore the noise and you still get a blunt picture: this rally dies the second AAVE slips cleanly under the $140–$142 pocket where spot demand last showed up; below that, it is pure exit liquidity until governance settles or some bigger player decides the discount justifies stepping in.
Kulechov, for his part, is now promising a clearer roadmap. “In the future, we will more clearly articulate how the products developed by Aave Labs create value for the DAO and $AAVE token holders,” he said, signaling that the next phase of communication will focus on tighter alignment between core development and tokenholder economics rather than rushed votes during holiday trading lulls. But still, after a week of accusations, failed proposals and a double‑digit drawdown, the burden of proof has shifted; Aave’s governance experiment is very much live‑fire now, and the market is watching the next Snapshot like a hawk.
