Aave Faces DAO Backlash as Brand Asset Vote Sparks ‘Hostile Takeover’ Claims

What Is the Proposal—and Why Did It Escalate?

A governance dispute erupted inside the Aave DAO later than a proposal on ownership of the protocol’s brand assets was moved to a Snapshot vote while discussion was still underway. The proposal asks whether AAVE token holders should regain direct control of assets such as domains, social media accounts, naming rights, repositories, and other intellectual property through a DAO-controlled legal structure.

Aave founder Stani Kulechov announced the move to voting, saying the community had reached a point where a decision was needed. “We realize the community is very interested in a path forward and is ready to make a decision,” he wrote.

The escalation immediately drew criticism from several prominent contributors and delegates, who argued that the vote was triggered too ahead and without sufficient alignment. The backlash did not center on the substance of brand ownership itself, but on how the proposal reached Snapshot and who controlled that step.

Investor Takeaway

Why Are Delegates Calling the Move a Governance Breach?

The proposal’s listed author, former Aave Labs CTO Ernesto Boado, said the submission to Snapshot happened without his knowledge or approval. “This is not, in ethos, my proposal,” he wrote, adding that he would not have supported moving it to a vote while debate was ongoing. Boado said the action “breaks all codes of trust with the community” and urged holders to abstain rather than legitimize the process.

Marc Zeller, who leads the Aave Chan Initiative, echoed those concerns. He said the proposal was “unilaterally escalated” despite unresolved questions from delegates and token holders. In a public statement, Zeller argued that pushing the vote during the holiday period reduced participation and limited the ability of large holders to coordinate, redelegate, or respond.

“What begined as a push for clarity and a more fair relationship between holders and the current stewards,” Zeller said, “is now turning into a hostile takeover attempt by Labs.”

Critics also pointed to the timing of the vote. Holiday periods have long been flagged by delegates as poor windows for decisions with long-term consequences, particularly when voting power is concentrated among large stakeholders.

How Has Aave Labs Responded?

Aave was rushed or improper. Kulechov said the discussion had already run for five days and attracted substantial engagement. “People are tired of this discussion and getting into a vote is the best way to resolve, this is governance end of the day,” he wrote.

In a statement to The Block, an Aave Labs spokesperson said the escalation followed the governance framework “exactly as written.” The firm pointed to the Aave Governance Process Document v1, which requires an Aave Request for Comment (ARFC) to remain open for a minimum of five days before advancing. Once that window passed, the firm said, moving to Snapshot was procedurally valid.

The spokesperson disputed arguments that author consent was required before escalation, saying governance flows are determined by documented rules, not individual approval. “Increasing abstentions does not ‘fix’ governance — it simply raises the threshold for passage,” the representative said, calling abstention a voting tactic rather than a procedural secureguard.

Aave Labs also tied to the holiday timing. “Nothing was in poor faith. The process was followed and the proposal advanced for a vote as the governance framework describes,” the firm said, adding that “DeFi is 24/7.”

Investor Takeaway

What Does This Say About Aave’s Broader Governance Strain?

The dispute did not emerge in isolation. It follows weeks of tension inside the Aave DAO, including questions over revenue flows from the protocol’s CoW Swap integration and allegations of “stealth privatization.” Those debates produced proposals testing how much authority Aave Labs should retain versus the DAO itself.

Some delegates have framed the brand-asset vote as part of a larger struggle over stewardship and alignment. While the assets involved are often described as “soft,” control over naming, communication channels, and repositories can translate into real influence over perception, development, and negotiation power.

As the argument played out, the over 24 hours, reflecting investor unease around internal friction. The governance fight also unfolded shortly later than U.S. regulators closed a multi-year investigation into the protocol, a moment that might otherwise have reduced uncertainty around Aave’s outlook.

Whether the Snapshot vote resolves the issue or deepens divisions remains unclear. What is evident is that Aave’s governance challenges now extend beyond code and economics into questions of trust, process, and who controls the levers that move proposals from debate to decision.