A dispute over who controls the branding and online presence of Aave, a decentralized lending platform, has spilled over into governance and procedures, sending the AAVE token down sharply, down 11% in the last 24 hours.
The flashpoint is a governance discussion post by BGD Labs co-founder Ernesto Boado, which argues that AAVE holders should take formal control of Aave “brand assets” such as domains, social identifiers, naming rights, and other gateways. BGD Labs is a group founded by three community members that emerged in 2022.
Leaving these assets in the hands of third parties creates a structural imbalance, according to Boado. Even if a contributor acts in good faith today, unilateral control over aave.com and major social media accounts can be used to direct narratives, product distribution and monetization in ways that the DAO cannot meaningfully verify, Boado said.
Boado’s proposal is posed first as a question of ownership and then as a debate about the product. It doesn’t say that Aave Labs shouldn’t build the interface or ship products. It argues that the DAO should own the core identity and access points, and then decide how those assets can be used, even if any party gets permission to manage them under enforceable terms.
The debate quickly turned into a procedural drama.
After several days of discussion, Aave founder Stani Kulechov moved the proposal to an instant vote.
Boado objected, saying the proposal was not being advanced in the spirit it was intended. He said Aave Labs rushed it to a vote, put his name on it and did so without telling him. In his words, he broke trust and interrupted a discussion that was producing significant new points.
Charging…
Kulechov responded by saying the process followed established governance norms.
In a post on
He added that the DAO has previously put proposals to a vote even when the original authors were third parties.
Charging…
The result of the vote will not only resolve an argument by Aave. It will test a broader DeFi tension over whether DAOs can own smart contracts on-chain, but control over brands and interfaces still tends to remain off-chain, where governance is slower, rights are murkier, and incentives can diverge.




