In decentralized finance, trust is built slowly and tested often. Communities expect transparency from founders, especially when governance decisions carry financial and symbolic weight. When those expectations feel shaky, even routine votes can turn into flashpoints.
That tension surfaced this week around Aave, one of DeFi’s most established lending protocols. The discussion quickly moved beyond a single proposal and into broader questions about governance power, founder influence, and how value flows between builders and token holders. As debates like these echo across the sector, platforms such as Gemini and other regulated exchanges closely watch how major DeFi projects handle internal disputes.
Stani Kulechov, founder and CEO of Aave Labs, has rejected claims that he bought Aave tokens to influence a recent governance vote that ultimately failed.
Community members alleged that Kulechov had purchased roughly $15 million worth of Aave tokens to increase his voting power ahead of a controversial proposal. The vote focused on placing Aave’s brand and intellectual property more directly under the control of the Aave DAO.
Kulechov pushed back on those accusations publicly. He said the tokens were not used to vote on the proposal and denied any attempt to sway the outcome. He framed the purchase as a personal investment in a project he has spent years building, rather than a tactical governance move.
He also acknowledged a deeper issue raised by the dispute. Aave Labs, he said, has not always communicated clearly how its products and integrations create value for the DAO and for Aave token holders. Going forward, he said the relationship and economic alignment would be explained more openly.
The vote itself drew limited support. More than half of participating voters rejected the proposal, while a large share chose to abstain. Only a small fraction voted in favor.
Governance process under scrutiny
The controversy did not begin with the token purchase claims. It started when a DAO member raised concerns about fees generated through an integration with CoW Swap, a decentralized exchange aggregator.
Those fees, according to critics, were routed to a wallet controlled by Aave Labs rather than the DAO. Some community members argued that the DAO should have been consulted before any redirection of revenue tied to the protocol.
That concern escalated into a proposal seeking greater DAO control over Aave’s brand assets. Even before voting closed, several members complained that the proposal had been rushed and that standard governance discussions were skipped.
Further confusion emerged when Ernesto Boado, a former Aave Labs chief technical officer, was listed as the proposal’s author. Boado later said the proposal was submitted without his knowledge and that he would not have approved it had he been consulted.
Why this matters
DeFi governance relies on credibility. When token holders believe that insiders have an unfair advantage, confidence in the system weakens.
For large protocols like Aave, these moments shape how regulators, exchanges like Gemini, and retail users assess long term reliability. Clear boundaries between development teams and DAO control are no longer optional. They are a requirement for trust.
The episode also highlights how unclear revenue flows and rushed governance can trigger broader backlash, even if no rules were technically broken.
Related: India’s Growing Interest in Digital Assets Sparks Tighter Oversight
How DAO governance conflicts arise
DAOs combine open participation with token based voting. That structure offers flexibility but also creates friction.
Large token holders naturally have more influence, which can spark suspicion during close or controversial votes. At the same time, fast moving proposals can leave contributors feeling excluded.
Without consistent communication and predictable processes, disagreements can escalate quickly, especially when money and intellectual property are involved.
