The purchase of a large package of AAVE on the eve of an important vote in the DAO sparked a new round of debates around the governance of one of the largest DeFi protocols. Aave founder Stani Kulechov found himself at the center of the discussion on power concentration, transparency, and vulnerabilities of token-oriented governance.
The purchase before the vote heightened tensions
The reason for criticism was the purchase of AAVE for about $10 million shortly before the key voting in the DAO. A number of market participants viewed this move as an attempt to strengthen their own weight in decision-making. DeFi strategist Robert Mullins publicly stated that the deal could have been aimed at increasing influence in the vote on the proposal, which he believed contradicted the interests of some token holders.
Other large accounts in the crypto community have also joined the discussion. Some reminded that over the past years, Kulechov allegedly reduced his exposure to AAVE, which calls into question the economic logic of a sharp return to the asset right now.
What Aave DAO is discussing
The conflict escalated against the backdrop of voting related to control over the protocol's brand assets. The proposal suggests returning domains, social accounts, and intellectual property under the management of an entity controlled by the DAO. Part of the community felt that the issue was brought to the snapshot too quickly, without sufficient discussion.
Additional discontent was caused by a statement from the former technical director of Aave Labs, who indicated that the escalation of the proposal occurred without his consent. This reinforced arguments that the processes within the DAO are becoming less predictable.
The issue of vote concentration
A separate topic has become the voting structure. According to snapshot data, several of the largest wallets control more than half of all votes. Three addresses account for over 58% of the total weight, which effectively allows a small circle of participants to determine the outcome of any key decisions.
Critics believe that such a model undermines the idea of decentralized governance. Even if the actions of large holders are formally legal, the concentration of tokens creates an asymmetry of influence that a minority cannot effectively compete with.
Broader than one protocol
The story around Aave has once again highlighted a systemic problem in DeFi. The voting token works well in the early stages, but as capitalization and institutional interest grow, the risks of governance capture increase. Any large token purchase near a vote begins to be seen not as an investment, but as a political move.
While Kulechov has not publicly commented on the claims, the discussion is shifting from the specific deal to a more fundamental question: do DeFi protocols need additional mechanisms to protect against concentration of power, or will the market and reputation sort things out on their own?
