Governance disputes in DAOs are rarely just about process. They’re about power, trust, and who really controls the levers when things get uncomfortable. This reality came sharply into focus this week as the Aave DAO was thrown back into turmoil following a unilateral move by Aave Labs to push a sensitive brand-ownership proposal to a Snapshot vote. The fallout has exposed deep fractures in one of DeFi’s most influential communities.
At the center of the dispute is a governance proposal titled ARFC $AAVE token alignment, Phase 1 – Ownership. The central ARFC proposal aims to formalize ownership of brand assets with explicit DAO control, covering domains, social handles, naming rights, GitHub orgs, and other channels currently stewarded by Aave Labs, BGD Labs, and related contributors. It also introduces anti-capture safeguards, DAO-controlled legal structures, and enforcement mechanisms if brand assets are misused or withheld. Ernesto Boado, the original author, publicly disavowed the Snapshot submission, claiming it was moved forward without his consent and while discussion was still active. Prominent delegates like Marc Zeller argued the proposal was rushed and timing was inappropriate, noting that advancing before the holidays could undermine coordination among large holders.
Aave Labs has pushed back hard against claims of misconduct. Aave Labs defended its move, saying the five-day review period was completed under the governance process and that moving to Snapshot was compliant; it rejected the idea that author consent is required. Governance is governed by timelines and templates, not individual approval. Encouraging abstentions does not improve governance integrity; it merely changes voting math. On holiday timing, they dismissed accusations of bad faith, noting that DeFi does not pause for Christmas, while markets reflected tension as the AAVE token fell more than 10% in 24 hours.
Leave a Reply