M

The recent @aave drama is a warning to all DAOs. Main dev and founder re-directed revenue to his own company called Aave Labs instead of AAVE token holders / DAO treasury. He did it without telling anyone. He argues that they own the IP and website/front-end so they can do as they please there. In light of this, the AAVE governance is just smoke and mirrors. Plus, the founder's bio says "CEO @ Aave". Not sure how that is compatible with a DAO unless he is elected to fill such a role. @StaniKulechov any comment? Ideally, all AAVE revenue goes to the DAO treasury and the DAO decides how it is spent. @Marczeller In this case, the "CEO" decided to use the brand and website he owns to redirect AAVE swap revenue to his own company without consulting the DAO. Sounds a lot like what Uniswap did and that didn't end well. Just look at their token price. If the AAVE token wants to avoid this, they need to fix this asap. Otherwise, there's no point to hold AAVE tokens if the founder redirects revenue as he pleases leaving AAVE holders holding the bag. The conflict of interest is obvious. Worst, it seems the recent integration of Cowswap on the site came after Aave Labs was paid for it with a grant. Then they redirected user fees to themselves. The v4 release and the Horizon market also seem to follow similar lines where more revenue goes to Aave Labs, not the DAO. Even the recent mobile app is another Aave Labs product as far as I can tell. All of this would not matter if AAVE did not have a DAO or token. Goes to show how governance is a very difficult concept since incentives are not always aligned between stakeholders. I hope AAVE can find a way forward where the roles of the DAO and Aave Labs are clearly defined and not in conflict. Maybe they need to look at Hyperliquid where 99% of revenue goes to HYPE buy backs. The team holds and is paid in HYPE. Everyone wins. Why can't Aave Labs do the same? The pie is big enough already or are DAOs inherently flawed? Like, share, and follow @duonine