Aave community members and participants have been sharply divided in recent weeks over control of the protocol’s brand and related assets, escalating an ongoing dispute over the relationship between the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) and Aave Labs, the centralized development company that builds much of Aave’s technology.
The debate has attracted enormous attention because it touches on a central issue facing many of the largest cryptocurrency protocols: the tension between decentralized governance and the centralized teams that often drive execution. As protocols grow and brands accumulate value, questions about who ultimately controls those assets – token holders or builders – become harder to ignore.
The dispute was sparked by Aave’s integration of CoW Swap, a trade execution tool, which resulted in swap fees flowing into Aave Labs instead of the DAO treasury. While Labs argued that the revenue reflected development work at the front-end level, critics said the deal exposed a deeper issue: who ultimately controls the Aave brand, which has more than $33 billion locked in its network. That question has now become central to the debate over ownership of Aave’s trademarks, domains, social accounts and other brand assets.
Supporters of DAO control argue that the proposal would align governance rights with those who bear economic risk, limit unilateral control by a private company, and ensure that the Aave brand reflects a protocol governed and funded by token holders rather than a single builder. Those who support the lab taking that position respond that taking control of the brand away from developers could slow development, complicate partnerships and blur responsibility for executing and promoting the protocol.
The proposal has deeply divided community members, with opponents and supporters offering starkly different visions for Aave’s future.
Laboratory support
Aave Labs supporters argue that the company’s continued control over the Aave brand and related assets is critical to the protocol’s ability to run and compete at scale. They say Aave’s rise to prominence in DeFi is inseparable from Labs’ operational autonomy.
“Something that deserves more weight in these discussions is how much of Aave’s success over the years is due to Aave Labs/Avara, and how challenging it is to run a real company like a DAO,” said Nader Dabit on competitors execute.”
From this perspective, Aave Labs’ early asset management has enabled faster iteration, clearer accountability, and smoother engagement with partners, particularly those in traditional finance that require identifiable legal counterparties. Supporters warn that moving control of the brand to a legal entity managed by the DAO could slow down execution at a critical time.
KPMG’s George Djuric has argued that forcing Aave Labs into a subsidy-dependent or heavily restricted operating model would risk turning builders into political players rather than product teams. Such a structure, he said, would stifle innovation by turning proven developers into “politicians singing for their dinner” every funding cycle.
Other supporters also reject claims that brand control amounts to economic extraction from the DAO. They note that protocol-level revenue remains entirely under the control of the DAO and that interface-level monetization, such as exchange integrations, is intended to fund ongoing development that ultimately strengthens the protocol. In his view, Labs’ work expands the overall economic pie, increasing the DAO’s long-term revenue potential rather than diminishing it.
A spokesperson for Aave Labs did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
DAO Brand Ownership
Supporters of the DAO taking control of brand assets argue that the problem is not stopping private companies from creating products, but rather aligning ownership with where execution and revenue generation now take place.
Marc Zeller, a long-time Aave contributor and founder of the Aave-Chan Initiative, said in an DAO supporters do not dispute that Aave Labs continues to build and maintain much of the protocol’s tooling. Rather, they argue that ultimate control over updates, funding, and risk has moved to governance, with Labs operating as a primary service provider alongside other contributors funded and overseen by the DAO. Problems arise when a private actor controls the store while the DAO ecosystem keeps the engine running.
Much of Aave’s growth across multiple market cycles has come from external, independent services teams that help run the system and keep it up to date, work that ultimately returns value to the DAO. If branding and distribution remain under the control of a private entity, DAO supporters say token holders will lack influence over how Aave is represented, monetized, and run in the long term.
However, the concern is structural rather than personal, Zeller said, if ownership of the brand and distribution remains outside of the DAO, token holders have limited influence over how the protocol is represented, monetized or directed in the long term. The proposal argues that DAO ownership, with delegated management under enforceable terms, better reflects how Aave operates today.
“The situation between Aave DAO and Aave Labs is probably the most important live debate over token holder rights today,” investor partner Louis Thomazeau wrote on X, underscoring the broader implications of the dispute for token holder governance models. “This is not just about Aave token holders; it is important for all token holders who are watching this unfold with growing concern.”
“Stani is out of touch if he thinks we are “tired” of discussing token holder rights,” Messari research analyst Sam Rushkin added on X.
According to the latest results, about 58% of votes cast so far are against transferring ownership of Aave-linked assets to the DAO, with about a third of voters abstaining. Voting is scheduled to conclude on Friday.
Read More: Aave Drops 18% Over the Week as Dispute Drives Token Deeper Than Major Crypto Tokens
