Aave (AAVE)

How much $AAVE would it require to get labs to commit to driving all revenue to the token? Feels like it’s better to align interests than create an incentive for Labs to seek other avenues to justify its equity value.

The comparison between @aave Labs and @Uniswap Labs is misguided at best and malicious at worst. For years, Uniswap Labs captured $100M+ annually in revenue with the protocol capturing nothing. All while driving usage on the back of token holders through massive incentive spend. In contrast, Aave Labs captures a relatively tiny amount of revenue with the DAO controlling the real money maker ($100M+ annually) at the protocol layer. Uniswap's recent alignment between Labs and token holders is commendable, but before was also by far the most egregious example of misalignment in history. Let's be measured. Bag bias is real. Be careful and DYOR

My thoughts on the recent Aave DAO discourse. The recent proposal is framed as decentralization, but in practice it would handicap the entity most responsible for Aave's success, and it looks almost like a coordinated power grab. A large part of why Aave became the largest lending protocol was because of Aave Labs. If Aave had been run as a pure "DAO" from day one, it would have been outcompeted years ago. The protocol operated like a DAO. Labs operated like a company. That division of labor and resources has worked extremely well while competitors with "purer" governance models stalled, failed, or disappeared. Aave the protocol is unconventional - a set of smart contracts governed by a DAO. But because it touches the conventional world, users, regulators, institutions, it does need at least one conventional entity interfacing with that world. Historically that's been Aave Labs. The protocol and Labs each have had distinct jobs, and evidently they've each been doing them *exceptionally* well (see https:/

This is a well-written and well-articulated assessment of the current situation. Driven by rationale, not ego. The proposal, as it stands, destroys tremendous value for tokenholders. Can you imagine a bank trying to close deals while being forced to negotiate with one service provider, then another, then another, each with a different vision (if any)? That simply doesn’t work. No serious counterparty would engage under those conditions. This approach destroys Aave brand, favors competitors, and erodes the value that we - the DAO collectively - have built over years. Winning teams don’t get reshuffled mid‑game. Aave will win.

Aave V4 is gonna be ready for this. By decoupling borrowing logic from liquidity provisioning, we are now able to move past the traditional ERC20 as collateral lending model. Collateral can be anything that can be represented on chain, no need to tokenize. https://t.co/Oxcl5dsF0U

My thoughts on the recent Aave DAO discourse. The recent proposal is framed as decentralization, but in practice it would handicap the entity most responsible for Aave's success, and it looks almost like a coordinated power grab. A large part of why Aave became the largest lending protocol was because of Aave Labs. If Aave had been run as a pure "DAO" from day one, it would have been outcompeted years ago. The protocol operated like a DAO. Labs operated like a company. That division of labor and resources has worked extremely well while competitors with "purer" governance models stalled, failed, or disappeared. Aave the protocol is unconventional - a set of smart contracts governed by a DAO. But because it touches the conventional world, users, regulators, institutions, it does need at least one conventional entity interfacing with that world. Historically that's been Aave Labs. The protocol and Labs each have had distinct jobs, and evidently they've each been doing them *exceptionally* well (see https:/