Tensions inside the Aave ecosystem have resurfaced after public comments from Stani Kulechov, who pushed back against claims that he attempted to influence a recent governance vote by acquiring a large number of tokens.
The dispute has reignited broader questions about transparency, governance processes, and the relationship between the Aave decentralized autonomous organization and its core development company.
Key takeaways
Stani Kulechov denied using AAVE tokens to influence a DAO vote
The allegations involved a reported $15 million AAVE token purchase
The disputed proposal focused on control of Aave’s brand assets
The vote failed after strong community opposition and high abstention
The episode highlighted governance tensions between Aave DAO and Aave Labs
Kulechov, who leads Aave Labs, addressed allegations that he purchased roughly $15 million worth of AAVE tokens in order to sway a controversial DAO proposal that ultimately failed. He denied that the tokens were used for voting purposes, stating that they were not involved in the decision-making process and were never intended to be. According to Kulechov, the purchase reflected long-term commitment rather than an attempt to gain governance leverage.
The recent DAO vote has wrapped up, and it has raised important questions about the relationship between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders. This is a productive discussion that’s essential for the long-term health of Aave.
While it's been a bit hectic, debate and disagreement…
— Stani.eth (@StaniKulechov) December 26, 2025
He also acknowledged shortcomings in how Aave Labs has communicated its economic alignment with token holders. Kulechov said clearer explanations are needed around how products developed by Aave Labs translate into value for the DAO and AAVE holders, signaling that future messaging will be more explicit on that front.
Governance vote exposes deeper fault lines
The controversy unfolded around a proposal that sought to transfer control of Aave’s brand and intellectual property to the DAO. The idea gained traction after a community member raised concerns that fees generated through an integration with CoW Swap were directed to a wallet associated with Aave Labs, rather than to the DAO.
Critics argued that revenues generated through protocol activity should fall under DAO oversight and that the community should have been consulted before any redirection of funds occurred. The issue quickly escalated into a broader debate over governance norms, transparency, and the boundaries between the DAO and its primary developer.
When the vote concluded, the proposal failed decisively. More than half of participants voted against it, while a large portion abstained, and only a small minority supported the measure. Even before the final tally, many DAO members voiced frustration, claiming the proposal was rushed and bypassed established governance procedures.
Further complicating matters, Ernesto Boado, who was listed as the proposal’s author, stated that it had been submitted without his approval or prior knowledge. He said he would not have endorsed putting the proposal forward under those circumstances, adding another layer of confusion to an already contentious process.
The episode has left the Aave community grappling with unresolved questions about accountability and coordination between the DAO and Aave Labs. While the immediate proposal has been rejected, the underlying issues it exposed — particularly around governance structure and economic alignment — are likely to remain central topics as the protocol evolves.
