2025-12-27 15:23:40

Recently, the failed Aave voting event has sparked considerable discussion within the community. Here, based on multiple information sources, we have summarized the entire sequence of events, the main participants, and key details to help everyone understand why this governance controversy occurred.

This vote centered around a governance proposal from the Aave DAO. It was not a minor tweak or parameter adjustment, but rather a fundamental issue affecting the entire Aave ecosystem—control over brand assets, ownership of frontend applications and revenue sources, and the unwritten power relationships between the Aave DAO and Aave Labs.

Currently, Aave operates under a model where the DAO and the development team function separately. The Aave DAO uses AAVE tokens for voting, primarily responsible for adjusting protocol parameters, setting risk management policies, and making high-level decisions. Aave Labs, as the core development and operations team, has long handled frontend interfaces, feature development, brand management, and user onboarding. There are no explicitly written responsibilities and rights in the governance documents; instead, they operate based on historical cooperation and mutual understanding.

The trigger for this issue was a recent adjustment made by Aave Labs to the frontend application. In the latest update, Aave Labs integrated the swap functionality on aave.com into CoW Swap.

AAVE-1%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

7 Likes

Reward
7
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidatedTwice

· 18h ago

Now it's good, the DAO and the development team are playing their own games, only realizing when something goes wrong that no one is really in charge... By the way, Aave Labs' move to integrate CoW Swap feels like a quiet power shift. The power dynamics weren't written into the documents? Isn't this a hidden minefield? The failure of DAO votes shows that governance in the crypto space is still hard to clarify. It's that same "default understanding" again, always like this, always leading to issues. The power struggle behind the failed vote is much more complex than just adjusting parameters. Could it be that Labs wants to break away from the DAO and operate independently? It seems Aave is now in a state where they share risks together and enjoy separately when there's no issue. That move with CoW Swap definitely had some subtle intentions of stealthy expansion. If brand assets can't be managed properly, how can the protocol itself develop? Honestly, DAOs without clear responsibilities and rights always end up like this.

View OriginalReply0

DecentralizeMe

· 18h ago

The real issue now is that the boundaries of authority haven't been properly defined. DAO and development teams are each doing their own thing, and only when something goes wrong do they realize no one has ever written "What you can do and what I can do"... After so many years of DAO governance, basic issues are still being debated, which is a bit embarrassing. To put it simply, no one wants to be the first to bow, and the CoW Swap incident became the fuse. Power struggles are always more complicated than technical problems... A failed vote actually reflects that the community is still somewhat rational, but how to coordinate afterward is the real challenge.

View OriginalReply0

ChainMaskedRider

· 19h ago

Basically, it's just that the DAO and Labs didn't clarify things properly. It's really frustrating that they're only now having a falling-out.

View OriginalReply0

TradingNightmare

· 19h ago

Honestly, this matter isn't that complicated. It's just that the boundaries of authority between DAO and Labs haven't been clarified. The inability of DAO and Labs to manage their relationship is the real big problem for Aave. Did the swap feature move to CoW? That seems a bit ridiculous, like digging a hole for yourself. It's acceptable if a vote fails, but this kind of implicit power division should have been clarified long ago. Relying solely on "default understanding" for governance, no wonder it’s prone to mishaps. Watching Aave team members fight among themselves, it doesn't feel quite right. Who has the final say on brand assets should be transparent, right? This failed vote shows that the community still has ideas; it's not entirely blind obedience.

View OriginalReply0