Aave DAO Power Concentration Crisis: The Big Token Purchase by Stani Kulechov Before the Key Vote

The Aave ecosystem is facing a governance trust crisis. On the eve of a critical DAO vote that impacts brand asset ownership, platform founder Stani Kulechov made a large purchase of AAVE tokens, sparking intense community debate over potential abuse of power.

Seeing the Truth Behind Power Distribution Through Data

The governance issues of Aave DAO are more serious than they appear on the surface. Recent on-chain data shows that this so-called decentralized platform has a concerning concentration of power: the top 10 addresses control 46.67% of voting rights, the top 20 addresses hold 56.50%, and the top 50 addresses possess 71.78%. These figures directly reflect that Aave’s “decentralized governance” still heavily relies on the decisions of a few large holders.

In such a power landscape, Stani Kulechov’s short-term move to spend approximately $10 million to increase his AAVE holdings appears particularly sensitive. This is not just an investment but is interpreted as an attempt to strengthen his influence during a critical vote—a direct challenge to the ideals of decentralization.

The Power Struggle Over Brand Asset Control Sparks Community Division

The ongoing Snapshot vote involves a core proposal: should Aave DAO token holders directly control brand assets—including domain names, social media accounts, and intellectual property? Originally a significant governance issue, this proposal has evolved into a trust crisis following Stani’s large purchase.

DeFi strategist Robert Mullins openly stated on social media that Stani’s buying was “clearly aimed at increasing his influence in the vote and pushing a proposal that goes against the interests of token holders.” Crypto commentator Sisyphus later expressed similar concerns, questioning the economic motives behind this move and its negative impact on the community.

More notably, the proposal’s author, Ernesto Boado, former CTO of Aave Labs, publicly clarified that he never authorized the proposal to advance to the Snapshot voting stage, describing the entire process as a “betrayal of trust.” This indicates that even within the core team of the project, there are serious disagreements and procedural disputes.

The Deep Contradiction Between Decentralization Ideals and Reality

Aave’s predicament reflects a fundamental issue faced by the entire DeFi governance space: how to balance the interests of large holders with community democracy. In theory, token voting should represent the voice of the entire community; in practice, power concentration continues to occur.

The current governance crisis has already affected the market. AAVE token has shown significant volatility, with some sell-offs directly attributed to concerns over governance decisions. Community division, broken trust, and doubts about procedural legitimacy are eroding the foundation of this platform, which should embody the spirit of DeFi decentralization.

This controversy raises a critical question all DAOs need to consider: Is the existing voting power distribution mechanism sufficient to prevent abuse of power? When key decision moments arrive, can the current governance framework truly protect the interests of the minority? Aave is delivering a profound lesson to the entire industry through this “internal war.”