Aave brand assets transfer to DAO control proposal voting implemented — 55.29% opposition vote rejected

2025-12-26 02:52:10

Abstract generation in progress

【ChainNews】The issue of Aave DAO’s brand asset control has sparked intense community discussion. This ARFC proposal aims to formally transfer domain names, social accounts, naming rights, and other brand assets to DAO governance, completely eliminating the risks associated with third-party control. At the same time, it seeks to make ownership and usage rules truly transparent through the DAO legal framework.

However, the voting results were somewhat unexpected—opposition narrowly won with 994,800 votes (55.29%), while supporters only received 63,000 votes (41.21% chose to abstain). This indicates that the community still has disagreements over the transfer of brand assets. Some believe that the current model is already operating smoothly and that rushing to change could create risks; others insist that DAOization is the long-term direction.

Essentially, this vote reflects an eternal Web3 dilemma: balancing the ideals of decentralized governance with practical operational realities.

AAVE1.57%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

governance_ghost

· 5h ago

Stability comes first, and reform should be gradual. DAOization sounds great, but once implemented, it feels awkward—not everything needs to be centralized. What does so many opposition votes mean? Everyone knows in their hearts. Wait, only 63,000 support votes? There are quite a few abstentions. This matter, no need to rush. Aave is running well now, why bother messing around? Brand control is really something to be cautious about—one wrong step and the whole game is lost. The community is so divided, it shows there's no real consensus. Continuing to push is just pointless. Actually, most people think the current situation is okay and don't want to gamble with that risk.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter007

· 5h ago

Ha, 55% oppose? Feels like this is the true reflection of the Aave community. --- It's that old cliché of centralized vs decentralized again. Honestly, it's not that simple. --- The current power structure has stabilized, so why risk changing it? --- DAO governance sounds good, but who is responsible if something really goes wrong? That's the key. --- What does 41% abstention mean? It just shows the issue isn't clear enough. --- Instead of messing with brand assets, it's better to first stabilize the protocol itself. --- I just want to know how many of those 990,000 opposing votes are from yield farmers lol. --- Honestly, it's still a trust issue. No one truly believes that full DAO governance can be safer. --- A 10,000-vote difference, this vote is too close. --- The eternal contradiction in Web3 is real; ideals are grand, but reality is tough.

View OriginalReply0

NFTRegretful

· 5h ago

It's another dilemma... To be honest, things are actually more stable now.

View OriginalReply0

TopEscapeArtist

· 5h ago

It's that familiar story of "idealism is grand, but reality is harsh." From a technical perspective, DAO governance looks like a golden cross, but in practice, it's a mess. The 55% opposition votes directly formed a head and shoulders top pattern, indicating that market sentiment indicators are completely pessimistic.

View OriginalReply0

StableGenius

· 6h ago

honestly the "let's decentralize everything" crowd got humbled here... 55% rejection actually tells you something empirically speaking — turns out people don't want chaos with their brand assets lol

Reply0