Aave Founder Denies $15M Token Buy Allegations Amid DAO Governance Crisis

Introduction

Aave founder and Aave Labs CEO Stani Kulechov has denied allegations that he bought $15 million worth of Aave (AAVE) tokens to sway a contentious decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) governance vote. Responding to criticism from the DeFi community, Kulechov stated that the tokens were not used in the recent vote and emphasized that his substantial personal stake reflects long-term conviction in the Aave protocol and its ecosystem. He also acknowledged that Aave Labs has not always clearly communicated how its products align economically with AAVE token holders and the Aave DAO, promising more transparency around value creation and tokenholder benefits.

The controversy centers on a recent governance proposal to transfer control of Aave’s brand assets to the Aave DAO. The proposal emerged after pseudonymous DAO member EzR3aL raised concerns that fees generated from a CoW Swap integration were being directed to a wallet controlled by Aave Labs rather than the DAO treasury. This sparked a broader debate on DAO governance, intellectual property rights, and whether protocol-generated revenues and brand assets should be fully controlled by tokenholders. In the final tally, more than 55% of voters rejected the proposal, around 41% abstained, and only 3.5% supported shifting brand control to the DAO.

Tensions escalated further when community members argued the vote had been rushed and bypassed normal governance procedures, deepening questions about decentralization and accountability in DeFi governance. Former Aave Labs CTO Ernesto Boado, listed as the proposal’s author, publicly claimed it was submitted without his knowledge or consent, adding to the perception of process failures within Aave’s governance system. The episode has fueled ongoing discussions around DAO governance best practices, the balance of power between core development teams and tokenholders, and how leading DeFi protocols like Aave can strengthen transparency, tokenholder rights, and on-chain governance legitimacy.

Background

The Aave ecosystem has been navigating one of its more contentious governance moments, centered on questions of decentralization, intellectual property, and how value flows between Aave Labs and the Aave DAO. At the heart of the debate are two issues: allegations that Aave founder and Aave Labs CEO Stani Kulechov bought roughly $15 million worth of AAVE tokens to influence a major governance proposal, and a failed vote that would have moved control of Aave’s brand assets under direct DAO ownership.

This episode offers a useful case study in DeFi governance: how decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) make decisions, where misalignments can surface between core development teams and tokenholders, and why process and communication matter as much as on-chain mechanics. For DeFi and fintech professionals tracking the evolution of protocol governance, the Aave controversy highlights real-world tradeoffs in scaling decentralized finance responsibly.

Aave, AAVE, and the Role of the DAO

Aave is a leading decentralized finance (DeFi) lending protocol that allows users to supply and borrow digital assets without intermediaries. Governance of the protocol is handled by the Aave DAO, a decentralized collective of AAVE, stkAAVE, and aAAVE holders on Ethereum mainnet who can propose and vote on upgrades and policy changes through Aave’s on-chain governance system and Snapshot votes (Aave Governance docs).

In this model:

• Aave Labs is the primary development company building and maintaining core infrastructure and new products.

• The Aave DAO sets high-level direction and approves changes via formal governance proposals.

• The AAVE governance token confers voting and proposal power, allowing tokenholders to shape the protocol’s future.

Aave has a relatively structured governance process designed to prevent rushed decisions: ideas typically move from forum discussion, to Snapshot “temperature checks,” to more formal Aave Requests for Final Comments (ARFCs), and finally to on-chain Aave Improvement Proposals (AIPs). A standard proposal that follows the full path usually takes at least 19 days from first discussion to on-chain execution, according to the Aave Governance Process Document published by ACI, a major DAO contributor.

That context matters because one of the key criticisms in this episode is that normal governance procedures were not followed.

How CoW Swap Fees Sparked a Governance Firestorm

The immediate trigger for the dispute was a question about fee flows from a CoW Swap integration. CoW Swap is a decentralized exchange (DEX) aggregator focused on efficient and MEV-aware trade execution. Aave integrated with CoW Swap to route certain asset swaps and generate protocol fees.

A pseudonymous Aave DAO member, EzR3aL, raised concerns on the Aave Governance Forum that fees from this CoW Swap integration were being directed to a wallet controlled by Aave Labs, rather than to a wallet under direct Aave DAO control. The core argument from the community side was:

• Fees generated by protocol-integrated features ought to accrue to the DAO treasury or otherwise be clearly governed by the DAO.

• Any revenue-sharing arrangement or fee redirection should be explicitly communicated to tokenholders and subject to DAO oversight.

This debate quickly expanded from a narrow question about CoW Swap fees into a broader conversation about economic alignment between Aave Labs and AAVE tokenholders, and who ultimately controls key economic and brand assets of the Aave ecosystem.

In response to the concerns, a governance proposal was introduced to transfer Aave’s brand assets (such as trademarks and IP) under the control of the Aave DAO. The idea was to formalize DAO ownership over Aave’s identity and ensure that future monetization or licensing decisions aligned with tokenholder interests.

However, the vote did not go the way proponents expected:

• Over 55% voted “Nay” on the proposal.

• Roughly 41% abstained.

• Only about 3.5% voted “Yae” in favor of transferring brand asset control to the DAO.

The vote was held via Snapshot, Aave’s off-chain signaling platform, which is typically used for “temp checks” and ARFCs before an on-chain AIP is submitted (Aave Governance portal, Snapshot proposal).

Allegations Around a $15M AAVE Token Purchase

Amid this governance turbulence, some community members pointed to on-chain data showing that addresses associated with Aave’s founder, Stani Kulechov, had acquired roughly $15 million of AAVE tokens around the time of the broader governance debates. Critics argued that this may have been intended to increase voting power and tilt outcomes in favor of Aave Labs’ preferred positions.

Kulechov has publicly denied that the purchases were made to influence the controversial DAO vote. He stated that:

• The newly acquired tokens were not used to vote on the recent proposal.

• His token accumulation reflects long-term conviction in Aave as his “life’s work,” not a short-term governance maneuver.

• Aave Labs needs to do a better job articulating how products built by Aave Labs create value for the DAO and AAVE tokenholders, and how their economic interests are aligned.

From a governance design standpoint, the situation underscores a recurring tension in DeFi governance:

• On-chain voting power is often proportional to token holdings; large holders—founders, funds, or early backers—can dramatically influence outcomes.

• Even when actions are within the rules, perceived or real governance capture can undermine community trust and the legitimacy of DAO decisions.

• Founder participation in DAO governance is not inherently problematic—in fact, many protocols benefit from it—but transparency around intent and voting behavior is critical.

Aave’s governance system, especially in its v3 iteration, is specifically designed to support secure, multi-chain, token-based voting (Aave Governance v3). But robust infrastructure does not eliminate the social layer: expectations around how influential actors behave.

Questions About Process: Was the Vote Rushed?

Beyond the token purchase allegations, many DAO participants expressed frustration that the brand asset proposal did not appear to follow Aave’s documented governance process:

• Community members argued the vote felt rushed and that there wasn’t sufficient time for discussion and refinement.

• Some claimed that normal temp check and ARFC stages were effectively bypassed, even though Aave’s own process guide frames these as important safeguards.

The situation was further complicated when Ernesto Boado, a former CTO at Aave Labs, was listed as the author of the proposal but later stated publicly that it was submitted without his knowledge or consent. He indicated that he would not have approved submitting it in its published form.

Taken together, these issues raised concerns not just about what the proposal was trying to achieve (DAO control over brand and fee flows), but how it got to a live vote:

• Was there adequate community review and risk assessment?

• Were key stakeholders informed and aligned?

• Did the process adhere to the standards intended to protect the DAO from rushed or poorly specified changes?

For DAOs in general, this episode is a reminder that process legitimacy—clear stages, predictable timelines, and transparent authorship—is as important as on-chain code.

Intellectual Property, Licensing, and Brand Control in DeFi

The dispute also surfaces a deeper strategic question: how should intellectual property (IP) and brand assets be managed in a decentralized protocol?

Aave’s codebases and governance contracts are generally open source, but not everything is purely permissively licensed. For example, the Aave Governance v3 repository is licensed under BUSL 1.1, with additional limitations to prevent uses that damage the Aave DAO’s interests (governance v3 repo). Meanwhile, Aave maintains dedicated brand resources and guidelines for how its visual identity and marks can be used (brand resources – via ecosystem docs).

This mixed approach—open, composable smart contracts combined with more controlled IP and branding—is increasingly common in DeFi and fintech. It aims to:

• Encourage innovation and integrations.

• Protect against brand dilution, malicious forks, or confusing copycats.

• Preserve the economic value of the protocol’s reputation and ecosystem.

The failed Aave brand-assets proposal shows that moving these levers fully under DAO control is not straightforward:

• Some tokenholders may worry about legal and operational complexity if the DAO directly owns trademarks or IP.

• Others view full DAO control as the logical end-state for a decentralized protocol: if tokenholders take the economic risk, they should control the core assets.

How Aave eventually resolves this question will set a precedent for other DeFi protocols grappling with similar IP, licensing, and brand-governance tradeoffs.

What This Means for DeFi Governance and Fintech Observers

For DeFi and fintech professionals, the Aave episode offers several useful takeaways about DAO governance, crypto governance risk, and stakeholder alignment:

1. Economic Alignment Must Be Explicit

It’s not enough for a core dev team and a DAO to be informally aligned. Clear documentation on:

• How products generate fees,

• Which wallets control those fees,

• How those revenues benefit the DAO and governance tokenholders can prevent misinterpretation and suspicion when new integrations go live.

2. Process Is a Governance Risk Control

Aave’s published governance frameworks (temp checks, ARFCs, AIPs) exist to prevent rushed, poorly vetted changes. When proposals appear to skip steps or compress timelines, even with good intentions, it erodes trust—and in a token-voting environment, trust is capital.

3. Founder and Whale Participation Needs Transparency

In token-based governance, large holders will always matter. Instead of pretending otherwise, protocols benefit from:

• Clear signaling from founders and major delegates about their voting philosophy,

• Transparent delegation structures,

• Public rationales for large votes or key decisions.

This doesn’t eliminate power asymmetries, but it makes them legible and contestable.

4. IP and Brand Governance Are the Next Frontier

As protocols mature, questions of who owns the brand, IP, and licensing rights become central. For Aave and its peers, getting this right will influence:

• Their ability to commercialize, partner, and integrate with institutions.

• The credibility and legal resilience of the DAO.

• How much value ultimately accrues to governance tokens.

Looking Ahead: Signals to Watch in the Aave Ecosystem

Although the specific proposal to move brand assets under Aave DAO control failed, the underlying issues are far from resolved. Going forward, observers may want to monitor:

• New or revised proposals on CoW Swap fee routing, IP, and branding that more clearly follow Aave’s documented governance process.

• Updated communications from Aave Labs clarifying how new products and integrations create value for the Aave DAO and AAVE holders.

• Delegation patterns and governance participation on the Aave Governance portal and Snapshot, including how major delegates and Aave Labs–adjacent entities vote on sensitive issues (Aave Governance).

For the broader DeFi and fintech ecosystem, Aave’s governance controversy serves as a real-time case study in scaling decentralized governance. It shows that even sophisticated DAOs with mature processes can run into friction when incentives, expectations, and communication don’t fully align—especially when large token positions and protocol-defining assets are at stake.

Handled well, these moments can strengthen a protocol’s governance culture. Handled poorly, they risk entrenching skepticism about whether “decentralized” systems are truly governed by their communities. Aave now has an opportunity to use this episode to refine its governance, clarify economic alignment, and further professionalize the interface between Aave Labs and the Aave DAO.