Look, the current situation around Aave is heated, but it’s a discussion we absolutely need to have.

For everyone out there who’s unsure which side to pick, here’s my take.

TLDR: both sides are wrong.

There should be zero doubt about one thing:

All value created by Aave - smart contracts, frontend, IP, brand, distribution, everything - should belong 100% to the $AAVE token.

Once a project launches a token, it must fully commit to it. That also means accepting that the equity entity becomes economically irrelevant. Trying to make both equity and token accrue value almost always creates massive conflicts of interest, unnecessary complexity, and unhappy stakeholders. I can’t think of a single case where this has worked long-term.

That said, token holders also need to get their expectations in check.

Many token holders seem to believe that the only way to create value is by doing 100% buybacks. In most cases, that’s economically stupid. Let businesses reinvest capital: scale the team, expand distribution, do real marketing outside of crypto, acquire users.

Do you really think companies like Apple, Amazon, or Tesla would exist today if they had distributed 100% of their revenue to shareholders in their early stages?

Of course not, they'd probably even dead today. Instead, they doubled and tripled down until they became the giants they are today.

Now, here’s where I think the Aave DAO is getting it seriously wrong:

Have a bit more trust in @StaniKulechov and his team, and more generally in the founders you choose to invest behind.

I know, this is much easier said than done in crypto, a space where founders rug daily.

But that’s exactly why founder diligence is your responsibility. If you want long-term conviction, nothing matters more than deeply understanding the founder’s vision, incentives, and character - often far more than the idea or even the fundamentals.

Do your job. Build conviction. Then let the founders execute.

Even though these are crypto companies, they must operate like centralized, private companies to stay competitive. Otherwise, they will inevitably be outcompeted or absorbed by banks and corporates. Just look at Stripe’s Tempo vs their fully decentralized / idealistic competitors.

The idea that Aave Labs should hand over brand assets, domains, socials, naming rights, github, basically everything, to a DAO is absurd.

I can’t imagine anything less efficient than a DeFi protocol being fully governed by a DAO primarily made up of short-term, price-focused token holders who have little to no experience building sustainable businesses.

The DAO taking over Aave would likely be the worst possible outcome - not just for Aave, but for DeFi as a whole.

Token holders should have a voice and benefit 100% from the success of the protocol. Founders should serve token holders accordingly.

Easier said than done. But that’s the only model that actually works.

Trust in Stani or simply move on.

But please don’t destroy @aave, arguably the best DeFi protocol, and one of the best applications crypto has ever produced.