Aave Moves to Ease DAO Tensions Over Revenue Sharing and Control

Aave Tries to Cool Governance Tensions as Revenue Debate Puts DAO Control in Focus

 

Aave is once again at the center of a familiar DeFi question. Who really controls the protocol, the DAO or the company that builds and maintains it?

 

This week, Aave Labs moved to ease growing tensions with the Aave DAO after backlash over how non-protocol revenue is handled. The dispute has exposed deeper cracks in the relationship between token holders and the development team, and raised uncomfortable questions about decentralization, ownership, and incentives in one of crypto’s largest lending platforms. In a governance post on Friday, Aave founder Stani Kulechov wrote that,

"Given the recent conversations in the community, at Aave Labs we are committed to sharing revenue generated outside the protocol with token holders, alignment is important for us and for AAVE holders, and we’ll follow up soon with a formal proposal that will include specific structures for how this works.”

At issue is revenue generated outside Aave’s core smart contracts. Specifically, fees tied to the protocol’s frontend and swap integrations. While these fees are not produced directly by the lending protocol itself, many DAO members argue they should still benefit token holders, especially when the interface is tightly associated with the Aave brand.

 

The disagreement came into focus after Aave Labs switched its frontend swap provider, a move that redirected fees away from the DAO treasury. Some delegates estimate the change could divert millions of dollars annually that previously flowed to token holders. That sparked immediate criticism, with governance participants accusing Aave Labs of unilaterally monetizing the ecosystem without sufficient community approval.

 

Aave Labs has pushed back on that framing. The team says the frontend is a separate product that requires ongoing development, maintenance, and legal responsibility. From its perspective, monetizing the interface is a reasonable way to fund operations, and not a violation of DAO governance. The protocol itself, they argue, remains fully controlled by token holders.

 

Still, the explanation did little to calm concerns. For many in the DAO, the issue is less about the money and more about precedent. If revenue connected to the Aave user experience can be captured outside governance, it raises questions about how much power token holders actually have.

 

The situation escalated when a proposal surfaced that would move control of Aave’s brand assets into a DAO-controlled legal structure. The vote was rushed to Snapshot, drawing criticism over process and transparency. Some contributors said the proposal appeared without proper consultation, further eroding trust at an already sensitive moment.

 

Market reaction was swift. AAVE’s price slid as traders weighed the uncertainty, adding financial pressure to an already tense governance environment. Longtime delegates warned that unresolved conflicts between Labs and the DAO could weaken Aave’s standing as a leading DeFi protocol.

 

In response, Aave Labs has now signaled a willingness to compromise. The team proposed sharing portions of non-protocol revenue with the DAO, framing it as a goodwill gesture rather than an obligation. The move is intended to reset the conversation and bring governance discussions back to alignment rather than escalation.

 

Whether that will be enough remains unclear. Some DAO members see the offer as a step in the right direction. Others worry it avoids the core issue, which is defining where the DAO’s authority begins and ends.

 

The broader implications stretch well beyond Aave. As DeFi matures, protocols are increasingly forced to reconcile decentralization ideals with the realities of product development, regulation, and sustainable funding. Aave’s governance clash is becoming a case study in what happens when those lines are left blurry.

 

 

For now, both sides appear to be stepping back from the brink. But the debate has made one thing clear. In crypto, decentralization is not a destination, it’s an ongoing negotiation.