buendiadas

I'd like to offer my perspective to help clarify the facts around the recent DAO discussions and vote. The conversation began on Dec 11 with a discussion about ParaSwap's positive slippage referrals and then, after five days of discussing that, evolved into an ARFC. This escalation signaled a desire from the community to move toward a resolution. The ARFC was then discussed for an additional five days, generating hundreds of replies, tens of thousands of forum visits, and extensive engagement on socials. Following the DAO’s established framework, the proposal was moved to a Snapshot vote exactly as it was written. Proponents repeatedly stated that implementation details would be handled in a future “Phase 2,” and the consensus was that *this* vote was about the core principle and didn't need the fine print. Nor were there calls for revisions to the proposal itself. When Stani suggested an iterative approach, many people expressed a preference for avoiding such steps. Which is fair enough, given that wasn't the expressed goal of the proposal. Only after the vote was called did a new set of “soft rules” appear such as holiday voting periods and author consent. These are not part of our current written framework. If these are important considerations for the future, I agree they should be formally discussed and added to our governance process. I have also been named by a service provider for causing "reputational damage." IMO, the real damage comes from turning internal governance debates into a public spectacle. Amplifying negative press, pushing prediction markets, and spinning misleading narratives is what harms the brand. My prior work for the Aave ecosystem reflects the exact opposite of this behavior. My number one goal since I got hired has been to make Aave as successful as possible. That means growing the brand, increasing DAO revenue, and ensuring we all win together. This year, I’ve worked closely with all of Aave's service providers to amplify their work and align our efforts toward that shared success. I’ve been a token holder since the ETHLend days, and I’ve always believed Aave's strength comes from the DAO's ability to have these debates and then come together to make a decision. That can't happen with the rhetoric that's been amplified, and encouraged, by some involved in this discussion. This ongoing drama is overshadowing what has been Aave’s most successful year yet. I believe it is better for the DAO to vote and resolve this issue so we can all move forward together.

It's time for the DAOs to standup to the Labs and Foundations. Starting with Aave, here's my proposal for the DAO to sue the Labs and reclaim their ownership of the protocol IP, Brand, Equity, & Revenue.

$AAVE aligned.

Sourced from sustainable protocol revenue, buybacks has been executed on average every six hours for many months. Amount subject to increase if DAO successfully protects monetization of brands assets, IP and strategic distribution domains. $AAVE Aligned means DAO aligned.