Return in Aave: The DAO demands control over intellectual property and Lab shares

The world of decentralized finance is preparing for one of the biggest clashes in DeFi history. A new proposal for managing the Aave project has sparked a heated debate about fundamentally redesigning the relationship between the decentralized organization and its creators. The scenario is clear: an autonomous organization could take control over the intellectual property and shares of Aave Labs, potentially transforming the founder into a dependent business entity.

The Core of the Conflict: What Is This Proposal Really About?

The initiative, which some describe as a defensive maneuver, arose from internal tensions. It presents a radically different architecture of governance and control:

• Full takeover: The decentralized organization would seize the intellectual property and share structure of Aave Labs
• Reformulation of status: The Lab entity would become formally subordinate to the DAO
• Revenue consolidation: All income related to the brand and protocols would directly flow into a shared treasury

The conflict did not emerge spontaneously. It was a reaction to discovering that fees generated via the front-end interface were directed to the Lab’s addresses instead of fueling a common resource. This revelation exposed deep tensions regarding who harvests the actual value of the ecosystem.

Growing Tensions in the Governance Structure

For a long period, an informal modus vivendi existed between the Lab engineering team and the token holder community. However, this balance was sinking under the pressure of increasing questions about authority, profit distribution, and the very nature of decentralization.

The fundamental question is: who has the right to the value created by the ecosystem?

Proponents of this solution argue that the value should belong to the collective that actually secures the network. Opponents warn that depriving the team of motivation could impact the pace of innovation and hinder development.

Implications for the Future of the Protocol

Accepting this scenario would set an unprecedented precedent in the industry. The decentralized organization would gain full control over the brand, technology, and cash flows. However, risks should not be underestimated.

The Lab team could take legal action, mobilizing resources to defend their interests. The team’s motivation could drastically decline. Moreover, such a scenario might discourage other developers from building within this ecosystem.

Significance for the Blockchain Industry

This proposal tests the resilience of the entire autonomous organization model. Its outcome will determine where the real power lies — with the creators or entirely in the hands of the community?

The decision will be watched by the entire sector and will influence future debates on governance in DeFi.

Market Context for AAVE

It is worth noting that the AAVE token is currently trading at $156.89 with a change rate of -4.00% over the past 24 hours. Trading volume reached $3.57M, and the total market capitalization hit $2.38B. These figures indicate that the market is expressing some nervousness about potential structural changes.

Questions and Answers

Does DAO mean full autonomy?
Not entirely. DAO manages the protocol through token voting, but interaction with the legal real-world complicates the situation, especially regarding ownership.

What is Aave Labs’ current stance?
The stance has not been officially announced, though it will likely differ from the DAO proposal.

How does the voting process work?
The proposal goes through a discussion phase, followed by an on-chain vote for AAVE holders.

What are alternative solutions?
Parties could negotiate a compromise arrangement, sharing profits or control under mutually agreeable terms.

Will this precedent affect other projects?
Directly. Any project with a split structure of (DAO and Lab) will observe this process.

This entire situation marks a key moment in the conversation about how decentralized ecosystems should truly function and who has the right to the value they generate.