The ongoing Aave governance drama seems to be hitting a turning point.
Recently, Aave Labs initiated a proposal to consolidate brand control and IP assets—but the timing sparked serious pushback from the community. Rolling out a major governance vote right around the Christmas holiday raised eyebrows, with many viewing it as poor judgment given the reduced participation and focus during that period.
When the vote came to conclusion, the outcome was clear: the DAO rejected the proposal. Aave community members held the line, voting against handing over brand and IP control to Labs. It's a significant win for decentralized governance, though it signals ongoing tension between the core team and token holders.
This conflict didn't emerge out of nowhere—it's the latest chapter in a series of disagreements about the protocol's direction and decision-making power. The community's willingness to mobilize against the proposal demonstrates how seriously Aave holders take governance participation.
For now, the immediate battle appears settled, but the underlying questions about protocol ownership and governance structure remain very much alive in Aave ecosystem discussions.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
14 Likes
Reward
14
10
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
DAOplomacy
· 01-06 14:42
ngl the christmas timing was... arguably a calculated move? reminds me why process matters more than outcome sometimes. path dependency cuts both ways tbh.
Christmas voting, Labs' move is really brilliant... The community still held strong.
View OriginalReply0
RunWhenCut
· 01-03 15:55
Christmas voting, labs really lost their minds this time
Hmm... the community still held strong, but this is just the beginning
The bull market hasn't even started yet, and they're already decentralizing power, problems will come sooner or later
Feels like labs wants to gradually sideline the DAO...
But on the other hand, participation in this vote is probably just so-so
View OriginalReply0
just_another_wallet
· 01-03 15:54
Christmas voting, really amazing... Do these people have a hole in their brains?
By the way, the community was quite firm this time; there's no room to compromise on the IP control issue.
Aave Labs' actions are becoming more and more outrageous, feeling like their vision is too narrow.
I thought it might pass before, but it was actually rejected. The community truly has power.
Waiting to see what happens next; this feels like just the beginning, not the end.
View OriginalReply0
Ser_Liquidated
· 01-03 15:52
Haha, laughing to death. Voting during Christmas? Labs really thought this through.
---
Again, again, again the core team wants to centralize power... The Aave community's vote this time was not in vain.
---
That's why I still believe in DAO. In critical moments, the community can still hold up.
---
Wait, this is just the first round... there's more to see later.
---
Honestly, control over IP and branding shouldn't have been given to just one team. Was this vote a moment of conscience?
---
The community has really mobilized. Not bad, not bad. Hope other projects can learn from this.
View OriginalReply0
StakeOrRegret
· 01-03 15:52
Haha, the voting method for Christmas is indeed clever. Labs really think everyone is on holiday.
---
The community is still awake, not bad, not bad.
---
I feel this is just the beginning; there’s still more to discuss.
---
That's why I only hold and don't govern. It's too exhausting.
---
Power struggles, to put it simply, are still about money.
---
The ambitions of centralization are exposed too quickly; it’s only a matter of time.
---
The voting results don’t mean the problem is solved. Keep watching the show.
---
Why does it feel like Labs is walking further and further down a self-destructive path...
---
Decentralization is not just for show. This time, the community won.
---
Another power game; the ecosystem remains the same.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoCrazyGF
· 01-03 15:41
Haha, really, the Christmas voting move was truly brilliant.
Didn't expect the Aave community to be so tough; if they say no, then no.
The Labs really overthought this round; DAO never sleeps.
The issue of Protocol ownership still needs to be debated further.
Feels like Aave is still far from civil war...
View OriginalReply0
MEVSandwichVictim
· 01-03 15:37
Christmas voting? Labs really can't hold it together this time... The community isn't fooled, so there's still hope.
View OriginalReply0
PrivacyMaximalist
· 01-03 15:30
Christmas voting, Labs really played this move brilliantly
---
DAO is quite resilient, not fooled easily
---
The key is that there’s more bickering ahead; this is just the beginning
---
Control over IP and branding should have been guarded against long ago
---
By the way, why does it have to be during Christmas? Isn’t it obvious they just want to take advantage of the chaos
---
Decentralized governance may have won, but when will this tug-of-war ever end?
---
Aave token holders have finally woken up; otherwise, they would have been completely sidelined
The ongoing Aave governance drama seems to be hitting a turning point.
Recently, Aave Labs initiated a proposal to consolidate brand control and IP assets—but the timing sparked serious pushback from the community. Rolling out a major governance vote right around the Christmas holiday raised eyebrows, with many viewing it as poor judgment given the reduced participation and focus during that period.
When the vote came to conclusion, the outcome was clear: the DAO rejected the proposal. Aave community members held the line, voting against handing over brand and IP control to Labs. It's a significant win for decentralized governance, though it signals ongoing tension between the core team and token holders.
This conflict didn't emerge out of nowhere—it's the latest chapter in a series of disagreements about the protocol's direction and decision-making power. The community's willingness to mobilize against the proposal demonstrates how seriously Aave holders take governance participation.
For now, the immediate battle appears settled, but the underlying questions about protocol ownership and governance structure remain very much alive in Aave ecosystem discussions.