Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
More
Aave Brand Asset Proposal Controversy: Governance Process or Power Play?
【Crypto World】The Aave community has recently been embroiled in controversy over a proposal regarding the ownership of brand assets. Here’s what happened: a proposal that was still under discussion was prematurely submitted to Snapshot for voting, sparking considerable debate.
Founder Stani Kulechov defended this move, stating that the discussion had already lasted five days and that the entire process was in accordance with regulations. However, this explanation did not quell the controversy. Former CTO Ernesto Boado and Marc Zeller, head of the Aave Chan Initiative, directly criticized this approach, claiming it bypassed standard community governance procedures and significantly reduced the participation of ordinary members. The most intense accusation was that it resembled a malicious takeover.
This dispute highlights a deeper issue—how should DeFi projects balance decision-making speed with community involvement? The Aave incident may serve as a case for other DAOs to reflect on their governance mechanisms.
---
Jumping straight to voting during the discussion phase—this is what you call "compliance"? Ridiculous.
---
It feels like Aave's governance is becoming more and more like a game of power. Even brand assets can be played with this way.
---
Ernesto and Marc probably have something to say. This isn't over yet.
---
Five days of discussion is considered sufficient? Wake up, everyone.
---
Once again, it's a case of "if I say it's compliant, then it is." Web3 DAO governance is getting more and more disappointing.
---
Stani is a bit rushed here. Why rush to vote so quickly?
---
Even major issues like ownership of brand assets can be accelerated. What about Aave's power restriction mechanism?
---
Another big shot claiming compliance, a routine the community doesn't even want to hear.
---
Stani's recent actions are indeed a bit rushed, governance processes are casually bypassed.
---
Wait, no, the brand assets part is really disgusting, it feels like Aave has played the power game clearly this time.
---
Locked in just five days? I'm just wondering, how can it pass the compliance review so easily?
---
Even the former CTO has come out, this matter is definitely not that simple, even Snapshot voting is being manipulated.
---
DAO governance has become just a formality, yet they still have the nerve to call it decentralization.
---
They act the most compliant when claiming to be compliant, but where has real governance gone?
---
That's why I don't trust large DAOs; a single word from the founder is like a global decree.
---
Here we go again, the big shots say that if it complies with the standards, then it complies with the standards. Has the underlying community spoken out yet?
---
Stani's move feels like he's testing whether he can bypass the community.
---
Laughing to death, discussing for five days and then locking the vote—this isn't governance at all.
---
I just want to see how Ernesto and Marc will throw shade this time.
---
Is the water really this deep in brand assets? No need to sneak ahead like this.
---
This routine is getting more and more familiar—initiate first, then oppose and adjust.
---
Wait, this isn't over yet, right? It feels like there's more to come.
---
Is five days of discussion enough? I usually start with a proposal and talk for at least two weeks.
---
It's the same old story, the classic drama of founders and the community fighting to the death.
---
Discussing for five days just to push for a vote? Why not just remove the voting button directly?
---
Stani's recent actions are indeed a bit dictatorial, isn't this just a game of power?
---
Wait, even the former CTO has come out to oppose it, so it must be a big deal.
---
The so-called standardized process, it feels even more casual than governance of fake coins.
---
Ownership of brand assets... are they really just treating the community as decorations?
---
I just want to know what Marc said later; this story isn't over yet, right?
---
Five days of discussion, is this rushing the schedule or is there really some trick involved?
---
We've talked about decentralization for so long, but in the end, it's still about the founder's face.
---
So they just force early voting, is this how democratic governance works now?
---
Discussing for five days = thorough discussion, this logic is mind-blowing.
---
Another classic case of a project team using rules to suppress community voices.
---
Even the former CTO stepped out to criticize, how dissatisfied must they be?
---
Ownership of brand assets and such things still need to be sneakily voted on in advance? That's just incredible.
---
It feels like Aave's governance is becoming more and more like Game of Thrones, isn't that what it means?
---
Five days of discussion and then rushing to vote, is that decent, everyone?
---
This is called compliance? The standards themselves are problematic.