Aave Brand Asset Proposal Controversy: Governance Process or Power Play?

Question

【Crypto World】The Aave community has recently been embroiled in controversy over a proposal regarding the ownership of brand assets. Here’s what happened: a proposal that was still under discussion was prematurely submitted to Snapshot for voting, sparking considerable debate.

Founder Stani Kulechov defended this move, stating that the discussion had already lasted five days and that the entire process was in accordance with regulations. However, this explanation did not quell the controversy. Former CTO Ernesto Boado and Marc Zeller, head of the Aave Chan Initiative, directly criticized this approach, claiming it bypassed standard community governance procedures and significantly reduced the participation of ordinary members. The most intense accusation was that it resembled a malicious takeover.

This dispute highlights a deeper issue—how should DeFi projects balance decision-making speed with community involvement? The Aave incident may serve as a case for other DAOs to reflect on their governance mechanisms.

RugpullAlertOfficer · Accepted Answer

Stani, this move is a bit rushed. Just five days of discussion before directly moving to on-chain voting? It feels like it’s bypassing the community a bit.

zkProofInThePudding · Answer

Ha, it's that same excuse of "I think five days is enough" again, hilarious.

---

Discussing for five days just to push for a vote? Why not just remove the voting button directly?

---

Stani's recent actions are indeed a bit dictatorial, isn't this just a game of power?

---

Wait, even the former CTO has come out to oppose it, so it must be a big deal.

---

The so-called standardized process, it feels even more casual than governance of fake coins.

---

Ownership of brand assets... are they really just treating the community as decorations?

---

I just want to know what Marc said later; this story isn't over yet, right?

---

Five days of discussion, is this rushing the schedule or is there really some trick involved?

---

We've talked about decentralization for so long, but in the end, it's still about the founder's face.

ForkMaster · Answer

Damn, it's the same old story: discussing for five days and then saying it's compliant? I think this is just a power game, the project teams are all using this trick.

BearMarketSunriser · Answer

Ha, five days and it's considered compliant? Laughing out loud, Stani is just legitimizing the Game of Thrones.

---

So they just force early voting, is this how democratic governance works now?

---

Discussing for five days = thorough discussion, this logic is mind-blowing.

---

Another classic case of a project team using rules to suppress community voices.

---

Even the former CTO stepped out to criticize, how dissatisfied must they be?

---

Ownership of brand assets and such things still need to be sneakily voted on in advance? That's just incredible.

---

It feels like Aave's governance is becoming more and more like Game of Thrones, isn't that what it means?

---

Five days of discussion and then rushing to vote, is that decent, everyone?

---

This is called compliance? The standards themselves are problematic.

mev_me_maybe · Answer

No, Stani doing this is just outrageous. Discuss for five days and then just throw it on Snapshot? What the hell are you regulating?

WagmiAnon · Answer

Bro, this time it's a bit hard to hold on. Can life or death be decided in five days? It feels like Stani is trying to shift the blame onto the process itself.

Aave Brand Asset Proposal Controversy: Governance Process or Power Play?

Trending Topics

2025GateYearEndSummary

CryptoMarketMildlyRebounds

GateChristmasVibes

SantaRallyBegins

CreatorETFs

Hot Gate Fun

Pin