Aave Founder Denies Buying Tokens to Influence Failed DAO Vote

What Triggered the Allegations Around AAVE Token Purchases?

Stani Kulechov, founder and CEO of Aave Labs, has rejected accusations that he bought roughly $15 million worth of AAVE tokens to influence a controversial governance vote within the Aave community. The claims surfaced later than a proposal tied to control over Aave’s brand assets failed to gain support from token holders.

“These tokens were not used to vote on the recent proposal, and that was never my intention. This is my life’s work, and I am putting my own capital behind my conviction,” Kulechov said. He added that Aave Labs had not done enough to explain how its commercial activities align economically with the interests of the Aave DAO and holders.

“In the future, we’ll be more explicit about how products built by Aave Labs create value for the DAO and AAVE holders,” he said.

The accusations came from several DAO participants who argued that the token purchases, even if not used directly in the vote, raised questions around optics, influence, and timing. The proposal itself ultimately failed, but the episode has exposed deeper tensions inside one of DeFi’s largest lending protocols.

Investor Takeaway

Why Did the Governance Vote Become So Contentious?

The controversy followed a proposal viewking to bring Aave’s brand assets under the control of the Aave DAO, the community-led body that governs the protocol. The vote was sparked by concerns over how fees from a recent integration with CoW Swap were handled.

An Aave DAO member known as EzR3aL said fees generated from swaps routed through CoW Swap were sent to a wallet controlled by Aave Labs. According to EzR3aL, those fees belonged to the DAO and should not have been redirected without prior community approval. The claim spread rapidly through governance forums and social channels, triggering backlash against Aave Labs.

The proposal attracted little direct support. More than 55% of voting power opposed it, over 41% abstained, and only about 3.5% voted in favor. Despite the lopsided result, criticism continued to build even before voting closed, with several DAO members saying the proposal was rushed and bypassed standard governance norms.

Concerns centered less on the final outcome and more on how the proposal appeared, how it was framed, and who was involved in its submission.

Who Submitted the Proposal—and Why Is That Also Disputed?

The proposal listed Ernesto Boado, a former chief technical officer at Aave Labs, as its author. Boado later said the proposal was submitted without his knowledge or approval. He stated that he would not have supported publishing it had he been consulted beforehand.

That revelation added another layer to the dispute, raising questions about internal coordination, authorship, and how governance items are introduced to the DAO. For some community members, the incident reinforced concerns that formal processes were being bypassed during a sensitive debate involving intellectual property and revenue flows.

The episode also highlighted a recurring tension in DeFi governance: the boundary between protocol DAOs and the development companies that build, maintain, and commercialize related products. While Aave Labs develops much of the software and integrations, the DAO governs the protocol itself—an arrangement that depends heavily on clear communication and shared expectations.

Investor Takeaway

What Does This Mean for Aave Governance Going Forward?

Kulechov’s response suggests Aave Labs is aware of the communication gap with token holders and plans to address it more directly. Clearer disclosure around how integrations, fees, and commercial products benefit the DAO could reduce friction in future votes.

Still, the backlash shows that governance legitimacy depends not only on onchain voting results, but also on how proposals are introduced and debated. Rushed timelines, unclear authorship, or perceived can erode confidence even when proposals fail decisively.

For Aave, one of the most established DeFi protocols, the dispute arrives at a time when regulators, institutions, and large users are paying closer attention to governance standards. How the DAO and Aave Labs handle future proposals—particularly those touching on revenue and brand control—may shape broader perceptions of DeFi governance maturity.

The failed vote closed one chapter, but the underlying questions about alignment, transparency, and process remain unresolved.