- Aave founder denies claims that a large AAVE token purchase aimed to influence a governance vote that failed.
- Aave DAO members questioned transparency after fee revenue from CoW Swap moved to a wallet linked to Aave Labs.
- Governance tensions increased after the community rejected the brand asset proposal and criticized the rushed process.
Stani Kulechov has rejected claims that a recent purchase of AAVE tokens aimed to influence a failed governance vote. The dispute has added pressure to governance processes at Aave during an already tense period.
Community members raised concerns after blockchain data showed a large AAVE acquisition. However, the vote at the center of the dispute failed to pass by a wide margin. The episode has triggered broader debate around transparency and alignment within the protocol.
Governance vote sparks scrutiny
The controversy followed a proposal to transfer Aave brand assets to the control of the Aave DAO. The DAO governs protocol decisions and manages community-owned assets. Members reviewed the proposal after questions emerged about revenue handling. The vote ended with more than half rejecting the proposal. A large portion of voters also chose to abstain, reflecting deep division.
Concerns escalated after a DAO member highlighted fee flows tied to an integration with CoW Swap. These fees originated from asset swaps conducted through the aggregator. Community members argued that the revenue should flow directly to the DAO. Instead, the funds moved to a wallet linked to Aave Labs. That detail intensified criticism and increased calls for accountability.
Token purchase allegations denied
Some community members alleged that the AAVE purchase increased voting power ahead of the proposal. They suggested the timing could influence governance outcomes. Kulechov denied using the tokens for voting purposes. He also rejected any intention to sway the result. The proposal ultimately failed, weakening claims of vote manipulation.
Despite the denial, the incident highlighted governance sensitivities. DAO members questioned whether economic relationships remain clearly defined. Others argued that unclear boundaries blur incentives between builders and token holders. The dispute has since fueled calls for clearer communication. Many believe this step could reduce future friction.
Process concerns and authorship dispute
Frustration grew as members criticized how the proposal entered the governance process. Several claimed the submission moved forward without standard consultation. This perception added to distrust during the vote. The issue deepened when the listed author distanced himself from the proposal.
Ernesto Boado, a former senior executive, appeared as the proposal author. However, he later stated that the submission occurred without his knowledge. He also said he would not have supported publishing it without prior review. This revelation further damaged confidence in internal coordination.
The governance dispute has since shifted focus toward procedure and disclosure. Members now demand clearer rules around proposal submissions. Others stress the need for defined economic alignment. As debates continue, the episode underscores ongoing challenges in decentralized governance.
