2025-12-26 03:23:36

The Aave community recently held a crucial vote, with the core issue being the transfer of control over brand assets from a third party to the DAO. After the results were announced, the opposition outnumbered the supporters — opposition votes reached 994,800, accounting for 55.29%, while support votes were only 63,000, making up 41.21% of abstentions.

This proposal failed to pass, reflecting divisions within the community. Supporters believe that the current situation has hidden risks: brand assets are controlled by a third party, which could lead to uncontrollable risks in the long run. They hope that by establishing a legal DAO structure, the ownership and usage rights of brand assets can be clarified at the institutional level, making everything more transparent.

However, the voting results indicate that more people are still willing to accept the current arrangement or have reservations about the proposed changes. This is quite interesting — the same goal of decentralization, aimed at protecting community interests, has led to significant disagreements in implementation. Whether the community will continue to push forward with related proposals or revise and re-propose plans remains to be seen.

AAVE-2,48%

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.

22 Likes

Reward
22
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MoonlightGamer

· 10h ago

The vote difference is huge, it seems everyone really has different ideas about DAO controlling brand assets. Isn't it quite ironic? Everyone wants transparency but arguing endlessly over "how to be transparent." Third-party control indeed has risks, but the risks of reform might be even more concerning? Let's wait and see how they adjust later; surely there will be more people tinkering with it. Over 990,000 votes against, what does this indicate—most people prefer to play it safe and don't want to take this risk. The ideal of decentralization is very appealing, but in practice, everyone has their own tricks. Suddenly thought of this—these governance votes often have only that many voters, which indeed raises questions about representativeness.

View OriginalReply0

NotFinancialAdvice

· 12-28 11:59

Haha, it's that kind of situation where "we all want decentralization" but in the end, everyone has their own ideas. Having a third party hold brand assets is indeed a bit risky, but looking at the voting numbers, it's clear that the community hasn't reached a consensus yet. Forcing things forward like this can easily backfire. Let's wait and see how they adjust later; I feel there might be a next round of proposals. --- Everyone talks about transparency, but when it comes to changing the interests involved, they get timid. Isn't that pretty normal? --- 55% oppose... indicating that more than half think the current situation is okay, or they just don't trust this new plan. Quite interesting. --- Negotiating brand assets is always this difficult; all parties have concerns. --- I just want to know, among the 990,000 votes against, how many are truly well-considered, and how many are just "I don't like change." --- Another good proposal, defeated by community conservatism. Classic. --- Wait, 41% abstain? That number itself shows that many people didn't think through how to vote. It's an issue of DAO voting participation.

View OriginalReply0

shadowy_supercoder

· 12-26 03:53

55% opposition is just 5 points away; I feel that adjusting the plan a bit could pass.

View OriginalReply0

TokenDustCollector

· 12-26 03:42

55% oppose this much, it seems everyone still doesn't quite trust this radical reform --- It's the same deadlock again, the eternal battle between reformers and conservatives --- To be honest, the current arrangement, although risky, is at least stable... Who knows what will happen after the change --- DAO governance like this every day, the voting ratio can easily reverse, how to ensure decision stability? --- 99,000 opposition votes are really a lot, it seems the community isn't that opposed to third-party control --- Wait, 41% abstain? That ratio is a bit off, a bunch of people are non-committal --- Feels like there's still information asymmetry, otherwise it wouldn't be so divided --- Decentralization ≠ everything needs to be changed, some things should stay stable once they are settled

View OriginalReply0

OnchainHolmes

· 12-26 03:40

It's another case of decentralized involution; playing around with it all feels equally hard to please. With Aave's vote count being so lopsided, it seems most people just trust third parties a bit more. How should I put it? Decentralization sounds great in theory, but actually implementing it can be a bit frustrating. Brand control is still a sensitive issue, and I understand the conservative perspective. Let's wait and see how they adjust the plan later; they probably will keep tinkering.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiLeftOnRead

· 12-26 03:32

Wait, 55% opposition and you say it's community disagreement? That's not disagreement; that's clearly saying no. Most people think it's fine the way it is now, but they still want to fuss over something. It's about decentralization and transparency again, but in the end, nobody buys it.

View OriginalReply0